From what I understand, Yaw is getting a lot of flak for voting for PAP in GE2006.

I think that the criticism levelled against him is unfair and myopic. He has already explained that he votes on one criteria alone: who is the candidate who will “better serve the interests of our country and the constituents”.

In short, Yaw is being a responsible and sensible voter, and I applaud him for sticking to his principles, being responsible, and not swaying with public opinion.

who will ” better serve the interests of our country and the constituents”. This statement is uncalled for. All PAP candidates will serve the interests of our country and the constituents, hence, according to Yaw, it is no use voting for oppositions, why vote for WP, when all pap candidates are much better in quality, in all constituencies,so I would think twice, when voting the next GE. After all 2 oppositions in parliament can’t do much thing.

How is the statement ” better serve the interests of our country and the constituents” uncalled for? It is the crux of Yaw’s argument and stance.

Yaw is NOT saying that because “all PAP candidates will serve the interests of our country and the constituents…it is no use voting for [the opposition]“. Yaw is saying that he will weigh up, in his mind and heart, who cares more for the people, who will do more for the people, and vote accordingly.

You also presume that he thinks “all pap candidates are much better in quality” and “After all 2 oppositions in parliament can’t do much thing”. He hasn’t said such a thing, and it is unfair to credit such statements to him.

Generally, we should not vote opposition for opposition’s sake as quality of candidates should count and the well-being of the country is at stake.

But in the context of our country & strategy wise, the vote should have gone to the opposition party in order to put enough (however small) alternative force to represent the views of people who may not have voted for the incumbent party. Singapore is so small that even though I cannot speak for all Singaporeans I think there are people who would want someone to speak for / take care of the interest of the whole country instead of only one small area the size of their constituency which (lets face it ) is structured more for political maneuver rather than for some other useful purposes. That is why that there is certain degree of comfort / quite joy for some people outside the constituencies of Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Kiang when they were voted in.

A lot of the services here like HDB, transportation like MRT, etc., utilities are not run along the line of consittuencies but rather on a national basis.

The incumbent party has a clear & dominant head-start / force in parliament and so far not enough of an alternative (opposing) force is able to sway whatever decisions already taken by them.

You need the necessary people (opposition) there sufficient long enough to brush up and to reach the attainable right policy-making / decision-making quality. This takes practice. All rookies have to be trained. The incumbent party has 40 long years behind them for them to draw on this long standing experience and yet they do not mind fielding new faces in each election.

Once, enough opposition representatives are in parliament, then we can slowly choose the best out of the lot and even increase the number of quality opposition representatives. But first, they must be voted in before they can even start to get a handle on how to manage the difficult task of running a country.

I think we should not forget that Shin Leong had had the opportunity – as had many Singaporeans – to see and judge the performance of the SDP candidate Ling How Doong, who was running in Shin Leong’s constituency in 2006.

Ling was the MP for Bukit Gombak previously.

It was only after knowing, seeing and judging Ling’s performance that, I believe, made Shin Leong decide that he could not vote for him in 2006.

(Whether Shin Leong’s decision is a right one is another matter. Fact is that Ling had been an MP before and he was on the national stage for 5 years or so where S’poreans could judge his performance. Also, his constituents, when he was MP, had the opportunity to see him at work.)

I do not buy the argument that just because we want more opposition in Parliament to take on the PAP that we should vote in anyone, whatever their past performance or non-performance.

If that were the case, elections here would be really useless.

It is not fair to judge Yaw’s action as a betrayal of the opposition. Considering what an idiot Mr Ling is, would you want him to enjoy the perks of an MP without doing work as he had done in his maiden term.

Singaporeans should not vote for opposition for the sake of opposition. Otherwise, we may end up with a bunch of clowns in parliament.

The onus is for the opposition to come up with good candidates, much better than the PAP. This is a difficult, but not impossible task. The first is to get rid of some useless oldies like Dr Chee and JBJ.

If you are talking about performance and serving the constituents alone, other things aside, I would say all Pap MPs, have good performance and serve their constituents well. So base on performance only, I think all Pap MPs should be voted in, because the two oppositions MPs performance is below our expectation.

If you are saying ” useless oldies like Dr Chee and JBJ, ” then i would say Chiam and Low are not much better either.

Gary, I would disagree with what you said. I don’t think Mr Low or Sylvia’s performance in Parliament is “below expectation”. Considering the circumstances, I think they have done quite well.

Where they may have not done enough is perhaps outside of Parliament. Perhaps more forums, press releases, higher profile public events should be forthcoming, like the recent forum on the voting age which, to me, was very successful. (There have been two articles – ST and TODAY – mentioning the forum, a response from the Ministry of Law, a press statement from the WP Youth Wing and generally people are talking about the issue. I think that was the purpose of the forum – to get people talking about the issue.)

Back to the point about serving the constituents. I do not think “all PAP MPs” have served well. The current issue of the cost of living has shown up what some PAP MPs would still want to do, despite the strain S’poreans are feeling. I am referring to the recent issue of Aljunied MPs wanting to increase S&C charges, though they have since retracted what they said.

Another issue is the amount of money that PAP town councils have – altogether, more than a billion dollars. What is the money for? Why is it not being used to help with utilities and help for poorer constituents and so on? Why’re town councils investing millions and millions of dollars in shares and stocks and whatnot?

So, until we have answers to these questions, I have to disagree with you that “all PAP MPs” have done well.

Anyone with money can build walkways, playgrounds, etc. That just means they are able to pay to engage town managers, landscapers, etc.

It doesn’t mean they are good MPs. That requires more.

Andrew,
When I say serving the constituent, means when a resident has a problem, he goes to meet his MP, and the MP offers his help in many ways. I am not saying the policies they implement , the issue of sinking funds and all that are policies lay down by the authority, that has nothing to do with serving the residents. If you link rising costs, increase of S&C and other issues to performance and serving the constituent, then I don’t know how to judge an MP.

Thanks, Gary, for clarifying what you meant.

If your gauge of an MP’s electability is the way he serves his constituents – “means when a resident has a problem, he goes to meet his MP, and the MP offers his help in many ways” – then again, Mr Low has done well. Else, you would not see the many people who sees him at his Meet The People session every week.

Thus, to go back to your original point, Low TK certainly has done enough as an MP to be worthy of re-election.

Everyone

It is really pointless to argue whether Yaw was right or wrong for voting PAP. The real crux of the issue is why he need to reveal it ? You don’t see a Pepsi salesman publicly proclaiming he drinks Coca Cola because he thinks it taste better, even though in reality he does prefer Coca Cola, for the simplest reason that it is a career suicide to do that. He can drink Coca Cola by all means, but he don’t have to tell everyone about it. So my question is, is Yaw committing political suicide by revealing how he vote ?

Andrew,
I agree that Low TK has served Hougang residents well, but what I mean is, he has not done enough in national level e.g the mas selamat debate in parliament recently, anyway I think he has clarified it.

From a public relations point of view, with regards to this voting for the other side, some things are better left unsaid. In other words, he should not have made it public. Sorry to see him getting so much flak for it but it wasn’t wholly unexpected.

RH:
1. At best, Mr YAW is totally Confused and Clueless. At worst, he displays Institutional Stupidity. “There are no stupid people but institutional stupidity is everywhere.”

2. Institutional Stupidity happens to the best of us and Mr YAW is young enough to be forgiveable. He will learn and be better and stronger for it.

3. Institutional Stupidity happens when we, as lawyers and judges belong to Law; when we as doctors and psychiatrists belong to Medicine; when we as principals and teachers belong to Education; when we as OS belong to WP!

4. I.S. happens when we unconsciously or subconsciously SUBSCRIBE TO OUR ORGs PHILOSOPHY, ETHOS, DOCTRINES, BELIEFS AND THEREBY, EVEN IDIOSYNCRACIES AND STUPIDITIES UNCRITICALLY OR UNQUESTIONINGLY. Very human, psychologically and socially explainable and forgiveable due to the fact that we never have the time, opportunity or temperament to question everything of that org we belong to. Like a son never questions his father’s strictures, thus explaining LHL stupidity.

5. In Mr YAW case, he belongs to the WP, famous for not Opposing the PAP too much. Being part of the WP, he naturally subscribes to much of its doctrines. Thus, he not only sees nothing wrong with voting for the PAP candidate, he even, horror of horrors, boasts about it! I.S. clearly at work.

6. Why is voting for the PAP wrong in this case?

7. The answer lies in the fact that while Mr YAW vote would have made perfect sense in a real democracy, it is a betrayal in this abomination and aberration of a Sham Democracy. In which elections are rigged, as witnessed by Mr David DUCLOS and his lawyer friend in 1997 Cheng San GRC; most likely also in 1963 GE in which the Barisan Sosialis was leading in >40 seats out of the 51, when a 6-hour electricity ‘blackout’ in City Hall counting centre only [and nowhere else] turned a Barisan landslide win into a total rout, as related to Mr PHUA Choon Seng by 2 different old men; even probably the OTC Presidential election, as related to me by rally goers in 2001 and separately by a politician “millions changed hands” for OTC to win.

8. In this Abomination of a ‘democracy’ and a ’state’ or even ‘country’, of which it is not, Mr YAW clearly cannot just simply vote for the best candidate who would do the best for his constituency. The normal conventions do not apply. Why?

9. In this Abomination, for decades, and Mr YAW should know this, each GE is a REFERENDUM on the LIEgime, much like Saddam Hussein held regular elections to prove his popularity. [Saddam, like LIE KY, also got >90% of the seats every time, using exactly the same methods]. So Mr YAW vote was a vote FOR the LIEgime. Thus, a vote AGAINST ALL THE OPPOSITION, INCLUDING THE WP. Betrayal. Any wonder the anguished outcry among onliners?

10. Outsiders will not understand this outcry. Those of us here long enough know that EVERY MEANS OF EXPRESSING UNHAPPINESS AT LIEgime POLICIES HAVE BEEN SYSTEMICALLY ELIMINATED AND CONTROLLED. By police with sticks and guns. By kangaroos awarding humongous sums to the LIEs in ‘defamation’ lawsuits. By govt blacklisting critics and oppositionists from every job over which they have control. By hundreds of other criminal, insidious, vendettas against helpless victims.

11. With every means of expressing unhappiness eliminated, that 1 vote, once in 4/5 years, becomes a BIG REFERENDUM. That is why most Singaporeans feel joyous at each re-election of LTK and CST. Not because they are good MPs or do good work in their constituencies, heck — any decent TC manager can do that for a small salary — but because that is the only way we can, and dare, to thumb our noses at the almighty Gods.

12. By publicly not understanding all this, that elections are not about choosing the better TC manager, but to be a symbol of the people unhappiness, Mr YAW has seriously damaged himself and the WP. Not really his fault. The entire Gently, Softly, Lets Not Rock The Boat style of the entire top WP management, is to blame.

13. In other words, Institutional Stupidity. The PAP will in election after election to come, gleefully harp on this betrayal. That even the Opposition, an OS of the WP, voted for the PAP. If it were not for the fact that by the next election, the entire landscape would have changed with the death/disability of almighty LIE KY, thereby totally transforming everything, Mr YAW and the WP would have paid a very high price for not understanding the people, the voters and election basics. Time and a death will probably make this mistake a non-issue.

What Yaw did is totally bad political judgment and utterly stupid. More so when he admitted it. How can he as an Opposition Party member (and OS!) cast votes for the PAP? It goes to show that innocent and naive lambs like Yaw lack the cunning, shrewdness and ruthlessness of the PAP. He might as well not join the WP. Low Thia Kiang should now sack him for betrayal and treason! I agree with Robert Ho. Now, for years, the PAP will gloat ceaselessly and remind Singaporeans at every opportunity that EVEN THE WP’S OS VOTED FOR THE PAP! Yaw has shot himself in the foot and did a gross injustice to the people who have been fighting for countering the political domination of PAP-people who have been fined, incarcerated and self-exiled for much of their adult lives! How can Yaw now have the audacity and shamelessness to stand for future elections and how can he be trusted to lead his supporters and his party to victory? No wonder we are sunk! How many more are like him, I wonder?

By the way, as long as Yaw wants to run for political office, he is better off remembering that there will be not a private life and a public life! He can’t have the cake and eat it too. He should have only strong views publicly and it should also be his private views! A vote cast in this silly way is a vote lost to the cause!

Hi all,
The damage done by YSL’s own goal should not be trivialised. It is extremely serious. I predict that it is fatal for YSL’s political career.
It is YSL’s right to vote according to his conscience but to disclose to the whole world that he voted for the PAP-which WP had spent decades opposing is nothing short of stupidity! What was he thinking about? Also to say that he may not automatically vote for any WP’s candidate in his own constituency is unbelievable!
He is organising sec and in most eyes future leader of WP.
Can WP afford not to do anything now? To do nothing is worse than to do something.
Now is time for WP to practise accountability. Damage control.
I have nothing against YSL and think very highly of him but this is HUGE mistake!

First of all, I must declare that I am apolitical. But still, even I am moved to opine that there should be some kind of party whip to dictate what members can or cannot do… say or cannot say… vote according to party doctrine etc etc… and to whip this person into shape. Hee hee…

I think by revealing what and why he did it in the blog, he is damaging his own credibility and that of his own party.

While politically I can understand that Shin Leong’s admission may be seen as naive, I also find the reaction quite revealing in itself.

Often, we are sadden that politicians ‘play politics’ and try very hard to be ‘politically correct’, even if one’s party has done wrong. A great recent example is the way Wong Kan Seng effectively refused to accept responsibility. Fellow PAP MPs such as Lam Pin Min defended WKS stoutly, refusing to see the point others were trying to put forth.

Shin Leong’s “mistake”, if one wants to call it that, perhaps is one of honesty. And perhaps also, the saying that politics is dirty and dishonest, is proved true here.

One can’t be honest.

One will have to “play politics” and be “politically correct”.

I thought these were exactly what we were criticising the PAP for?

Nonetheless, I hope Shin Leong will learn from this – not just how maybe he made a mistake, but also that the public sometimes aren’t sure what they want, actually – an honest politician or one who is “politically correct” even when it is wrong.

In my opinion, YSL do not know what is politics, do not know how to play politics, do not know how to be a credible opposition politician, and worst of all do not know how to be an effective WP politician. To comment on his voting for a credible candidate – this is not the point. The point here is what is your mission and objective to be a WP politician in the very first place. And if he knows the true answer, then he would have VOIDED his vote !!!

I agree with Whitley-Gate’s comments. The bottomline is YSL has no common sense at all. Who would be a “qualified” (better) opposition candidate by getting rid of useless oldies like Dr Chee and JBJ? Who has the guts to speak up or protest? Should give some credits to these people! Honestly, any MPs has the courage to speak up to use town councils’ millions of dollars to help lowering the utilities charges instead of to raise the rates with the surplus)? Now, who are the people qualified to be the good candidates???? YOU!

Kway Teow Man KTM is right about his own story line sounding bogus and way too contrived. The YSL episode smacks of sheer naivety on the part of the person involved, period. The moot point about the magistrate trying his father for the purported dastardly deed… the magistrate should simply discharge himself and let another person try the case.

And this sorry saga that is still unfolding only convinces me that the opposition is still several notches below what would be deemed as a viable alternative to lead Singapore forward.

According to Yaw:

“On polling day, one urged me that since the incumbent will win anyway I should perhaps ’spoil my vote’ instead. However as a citizen of our constitutional state, I take my voting duty very seriously and will never waste my precious vote, unless the political circumstances really warrant it.”

To me, the statement is full of polemics than substance. First, why is spoiling vote considered a waste. The act of spoiling vote is itself very much a valid statement one makes in voting. It is just as valid as voting for/against a candidate. A spoilt vote could just mean that one is neither satisfy with either candidate. In fact, Yaw, it is very much your “constitutional” duty to spoil your vote if you indeed feel that either candidate is found wanting. Second, if as he want us to believe, as I will quote him later, he took weighty consideration, beyond partisan ones, than why qualify his stance by this so-call “political circumstances”. What precisely does he mean by “political circumstances”?

The second part of his revelation:

“The interesting question perhaps would be, if a WP candidate is to offer himself/ herself for election in the constituency I reside, will I vote for this WP candidate? Partisan considerations will certainly weigh heavily in my considerations. Having said that, ultimately this WP candidate has to convince me that he/ she has what it take to better serve the interests of our country and the constituents to win my vote.

Here again the argument seemed somewhat difficult to reconcile with a consistency of thought. First of all, if a hypothetical candidate from Mr Yaw’s party was up for election, it would seemed strange that he would needed to at that time make such weighty consideration. After all should Mr Yaw not have considered the suitability of the candidate with party circle before putting him/her for election?

More interestingly is Mr Yaw indirectly suggesting that his own party itself does not practice what he believes in, that is taking into considerations non-partisan consideration?

I can fully appreciate that the context in which he made his argument is that he had to make a choice between another party’s candidate and PAP. As the other party happens to be the SDP, which I am aware of his views of the SDP’s “antics”, it would not surprise me that his vote against the SDP was indeed less lofty than he might suggest. If that was indeed what weigh in is consideration, why not just say so? Why all this Wayanging about “better able to serve”?

If he had so strongly felt that the opposition candidate in his own constituency was weaker than PAP, why not then persuade his party to make a stand in that constituency and not care about a three-cornered fight. After all his consideration was for the good of the country and not opposition for opposition sake? Ok, he might have argued that it was his party decision not to engaged in a three cornered fight but then why not oppose his own party on a grounds of “non-partisan” consideration? Where is his lofty idea then?

So going by the logic of his “better able to serve” argument than maybe he should suggest to his party when selecting candidates they should not bother to stand if the PAP candidate is best able to serve. After all, why put the electorate through difficult decision of choosing when his own party can’t even conveniced him, a party member, a senior one at, the worth of their own candidate?

Finally, Mr Yaw should stop all this polemics about “better able to serve”. Tell us precisely what his criterion better able to serve means? If better able to serve means in a better position to persuade the government, a PAP one, say to provide resources for the constituency, than frankly, his own party might as well close shop. After all, no WP candidate is going to be persuasive to a PAP government! So by that extension no WP candidate, if elected, would do the nation any good any way.

It is not a surprise that the opposition vote for PAP.

I have noticed that the opposition and their supporters are quite hypocritical. They go around saying negative things about PAP in the hope that their friends and neighbours vote for opposition but they secretly go and vote for PAP. They do this because I think they want “excitement” in the political arena but at the same time they wish for efficient management of their estates by PAP MPs and party members.

Mr. Yaw stated that he wanted a PAP MP because he was a good MP.

Presumably, he did not want an opposition MP who would mismanage his estate.

But one can then argue that the people should not vote for opposition at all. If the opposition themselves concede that PAP MPs are good and can vote for PAP, why should they ask people to vote for the opposition?

I think the opposition should just admit that PAP is good and give up.

Nicholas, aren’t you the homophobic YPAP member?

You should just admit it and give up.

After reading all these, I just feel sorry for the constituents who voted for Yaw and gang during the last GE.

They wanted an alternative VOICE in the parliament; they wanted to show the PAP their displeasure over certain policies implemented; they gave their support to WP; they took risk to support a bunch of youngster who are nobody (as compared to some tried and tested politicians in PAP).

But what do they get in a return? A WP candidate who voted for PAP claiming that he voted for someone whom he feels will better serve the constituents and nation.

Why didn’t he give the opposition a chance just like others gave him and his gang? Is it a political decision because the OTHER candidate is Ling How Doong? A clown, his appearance with a wig may suggest, but who can give concrete examples to prove that he didn’t serve his constituents well when he was MP? Is Yaw better than Ling? Who can prove?

While credit should be given for his honesty, I can’t help but to feel a sense of betrayal. So will the 33.86% of voters in AMK…..

I think Ling How Doong is much better than Yaw. Ling had the guts to argue with pap MP in parliament, and Ling also served the constituent of Bukit Gombak before it was turned into a GRC. Moreover Ling dared to speak out regarding human rights issues, ISA, and Yaw is immature and dare not confront pap. His credibility is a t stake.

GE 2006 – Electoral Division of AMK GRC:

People’s Action Party Candidates: 96,636 (66.1%) votes:

LEE Hsien Loong, 54 – Prime Minister

Dr BALAJI Sadasivan, 50 – Minister of State

INDERJIT Singh, 45 – Chief executive officer

WEE Siew Kim, 45 – Deputy chief executive officer

Mdm LEE Bee Wah, 45 – Engineer

Dr LAM Pin Min, 36 – Eye surgeon

Workers’ Party Candidates: 49,479 (33.9%) votes:

YAW Shin Leong, 30 – E-business analyst

Ms Glenda HAN Su May, 30 – Businesswoman

ABDUL SALIM bin Harun, 24 – Sales co-ordinator

Melvin TAN Kian Hwee, 31 – Sales executive

GOPAL Krishnan, 54 – Senior housing maintenance inspector

Mdm LEE Wai Leng, 26 – Editorial & translation executive

A cursory comparison of the candidates from the PAP Team with those of the
Workers’ Party Team for GE 2006 at the AMK GRC Electoral Division would tell
anyone the great disparity in their quality and character.

Based on Yaw Shin Leong’s rationale, all those 49,479 voters who had voted for
him and his Group from the WP should not have voted for him and his party in
GE 2006, because in no way they could be considered up to the standard of any
ot the PAP candidates. I don’t think YSL can even dream of being selected into the
PAP’s AMK GRC Team in a million years!

Though Mr Ling How Doong might have appeared to be crude, at least he has
not openly displayed to his voters that he had betrayed their support in the last
general election. For that, I think he is a gentleman and I salute him and will
vote for him if I had a chance to.

How can one who betrayed the confidence of those 49,479 (33.9%) AMK GRC
voters, who voted for him, be trusted any more? I won’t vote for him again.
Once bitten, twice shy. Never, never, never again!

From:
A AMK GRC Voter.

Wouldn’t it be funny if the constituents vote for the opposition in their ward while the opposition vote for their opponents in the same ward! :)

That is what I said earlier, if Yaw wants to compare credibility and quality, I say all 84 pap candidates have the best quality, and you oppositions no need to fight. But if you say, pap’s policy does not make sense, and let’s all oppositions gather together and fight pap, then I would say you are a true opposition.That is what is found in Ling How Doong and not in Yaw.

I think its time tht YSL come out and explained everything, suprisingly he’s nowhere to be seen or heard, if u go to SBF, u find GMS defending him, if u go to his blog, he seemed to hv thrown in his towel, and more suprisingly WP top leadership has been v quiet on the issue except for a brief statement by Slyvia Lim, if YSL really has got no guts to face the electorate again, I suggest he call it quits altogether. WP top leadership really has to do nothing, to hv a “traitor” in ur midst is nt v funny, 1 day he vote against LTK hw? If WP does nt wished to sack him, other parties shld shun him. Suprisingly other parties also adpot a “wait and c” attitude. Nw who’s laughing none other than PAP!!!

The Politics of Betraying.

I understand that Yaw Shin Leong was from Young PAP before he joined the WP.
If that is the case, then he could have already betrayed the PAP by switching his
allegiance to the WP. Therefore, if he could betray his previous political party,
who is to say he cannot betray the WP or any other political party that he might
decide to join later on?

On another note, if he had been with the PAP for some time, then he could have
been brain-washed by the PAP’s way of thinking (as reflected in his arguments
to support the notion why he had deliberately voted for the PAP in the last General
Elections while asking others to vote against the PAP in the same go). So,
subconsciously (”we should not have opposition for the mere sake of
opposition”) he could be very much a PAP man, though his physical body
could be with the WP. For all we know, he could have unwittingly become a
double-agent without even knowing it himself!

One more thing, we all know that voting is secret. We need not reveal who we
have voted to anybody. The question is why did Yaw Shin Leong deliberately
revealed to the public via his blog post that he had purposely voted for the PAP?
What is he trying to do? What does he aim to achieve by contradicting his own
stand?

Last but not least, just for curiosity’s sake, I would like to ask:
“Why is in in politics at all?”

Just to share my thoughts. I may be proven wrong.

Spy-Hunter.

PAP has been gettting so much flak this past months frm MAS Selmat, inflation, employment figures, surplus miscalulations and so on….

It is time to activate PAP double agents so as to distract the electorate… Opposition better be geared up for more funny and stupid actions from their own… signs of trouble is brewing. WP should bear in mind never to recruit EX-PAP people. Never recruit your enemies as your own unless you are very sure about them that you can trust them with your life.

LTK has to been treading minefield now… for MR YAW you can call it a day now. You have no trust and vote from me. Go joined your ex master.

Honestly, I agree with Mr Yaw’s stand that one should vote for the candidate who can “better serve” the constituents. Think about it for a second. The PAP USED to be the opposition, and the very fact that it is now a dominant party says a lot. This just shows that the opposition is still a long way away form being an alternative to the PAP.

I think the very first step that the opposition should do is to get credible candidates. A doctor or lawyer speaks volumes against an electrician or a facilities manager (no offence intended).

An MP shouldn’t only be focused with parliamentary duties. He should also be focused on serving his/her residents. An election is a battle of the heart and mind. To win this battle, one must really do well to serve the residents and show sincerity in serving them. Then, after that battle is won, should one think of winning the battle of parliamentary and policies.

We all saw LHD at Bukit Gombak. I leave it to you to judge.

Mr Yaw has every right to vote whoever he wants, but as an opposition, he should have at least abstain or spoilt his vote unless he can agree to the PAP form of governance which will make him irrelevant.

His reasons were that LHD did not prove himself during his stint as an MP in Bukit Gomak therefore he did not support him in GE2006. So does he expect the ppl in Singapore to give the WP or opposition candidates the vote because none was tested. It’s like I don’t mind an opposition MP so long it’s not in my ward.

Does he think that LHD can win with is vote endorsement? Most ppl voted for the opposiion because they can no longer agree with the present Government attitude and polices otherwise why the change.

Yaw Shin Leong must take personal responsibility by stepping down from his WP post. Whether he should remain in WP will have to be decided by WP members.

Only by doing this will restore the credibility of WP as a dependable opposition party representing the aspirations of Singaporeans in their continuing fight against the PAP’s highly questionable policies.

However, no action is required if both WP and Yaw Shin Leong decide that aligning with PAP is their direction, going forward. Voters will decide your fate!

Dear YSL,
I believe you have made the right choice in voting with your head, not with your heart.

However some things are better left unsaid. In your own circle of friends/teammates, you can always share your views. But this is a public blog, mind you. Your words can effect and affect many readers.

That said, I do not think it is wise to voice your choice of vote. Not because I think your vote is secret (which I strongly believe the PAP has used this to cripple people’s choices and out of box thinking), but you do represent another party.

It’s like Microsoft endorsing IBM’s product. DUH!

Next time, if you don’t have something good to say/write, don’t say/write it. What you have lost is credibility within the socio-political blogsphere, which can be so very important to gain support in the next election.

Yet I know how your feel about trying to be real to the readers. However it can go either ways.

A+ for honesty, transparency
D for public relations

Kaffein

I agree with Kaffein. You can vote whichever way you think is right for yourself… but why publicise what you did and shoot yourself in the foot big time? If it was to score points for political mileage, well…. it is backfiring many times over.

Honesty dont pay, if pap is honest, I think it cant govern for the past 40 over years.

“if pap is honest, I think it cant govern for the past 40 over years.”

Not when its honesty is been exposed as fake and Hypocrite.

Having read through the many blogs and comments, I really wish that YSL is still with PAP. YSL is one person that reason and weigh his every action, he treasured his vote and made sure it did not goes to waste, hence he did not spoil it.

Yaw Shin Leong judged the past performances of both candidates(THP/LHD) and decided to give his vote to the ‘better’ candidate. From the result of the Constituency, YSL was right in his assessment of Teo HP. The Latter, if memory serves me right, garnered the highest percentage of votes, in the Last Election.
Btw, Teo HP spoke frequently in most Parliamentary Debates, unlike his many other ’silent’ colleagues, who spoke little, did parroting and adulating and nothing else. Personally, I think Teo HP is a quality calibre and believe his electorates think likewise.

Why do I wish Yaw SL is with PAP? Simply because in the whole of the PAP Parliamentarians, none has shown themselves capable of analysing policies and issues and make independent decisions. Other than the Rule and effect of the Whip, they(PAP Politicians) should rightfully and justly debate policies/issues according to the merits of the substances and not take them as according to the interpretations of their superior members(leaders).

In the P65 Blogs of Lam Pin Min and Faishal, I have tried suggesting to them to look at policies/issues indepently and decipher and understand the effects they have on the people and country. As we can see at their blogs, no response has been made to the Suggestions; hopefully, they are thinking and looking into it.

I am of the opinion, that in every organizations, there are bound to be villians, scheming members AND there definitely exist righteous, honourable and enlightened ones as well. THERE WILL NEVER BE AN ORGANIZATION WITH ALL EVIL AND ONE WITH ALL SAINT.

So, I do not see anything wrong in giving credits where credits are due, such as Teo HP was deserving of Yaw Shin Leongs’ vote and Yaw SL had been careful in assessing the Candidates before he decided not to spoil the vote and awarded it to a candidate. May I say he had done his due diligence.

And hopefully, some of the PAP Parliamentarians will go through the ‘thinking processes’ from now and not ‘yes all the way’ in their political careers

patriot.

Yaw Shin Leong may be blunt but he isn’t wrong. He is big enough to determine what’s right for him. So let’s us give him the benefit of doubt. He must have consider the repercussion before he reveals about his vote on his blog. I think his conscience is clear. I rather have someone who honest about himself rather than someone who pretend to be honest and do otherwise.

There is nothing wrong voting for the other party if he thinks that the party he vote for is more capable than its counterpart even though he is in opposition party. In the end, what’s matter is capability not biased action.

Think about it. How many people here who comment against the government vote for PAP ? So these people are allowed to exercise their choice then what right are we to criticize other about their choice ? Yaw Shin Leong might have find his current party lacking and therefore give vote of confidence to PAP, but that doesn’t mean he does the same next time.

I’m also following the American primaries and somehow I can see a connection: if Obama ever said he vote for Republican for any reason, the conservatives will simply use it to further their attacks on his relatively inexperience and naviety. Those who know will know how rampant is negative campaigning in America, and the PAPpies are no stranger to that as well.

On one hand, we have the opposition parties criticizing the PAP for lack of transparency, and on the other, we have the same voices of dissent against Yaw for coming into the open frankly with his choice in this election.

On one hand, we have the opposition parties criticizing the PAP for taking care of their own in elections, and using heavy handed political maneuvers. Yet on the other hand, we have the same voices of dissent against Yaw for coming into the open frankly with his choice in this election.

srsly gais, wtf?

As mentioned by others, Yaw Shin Leong has the option of voiding his vote if he cannot bring himself to vote for Ling How Doong. To defend his choice for Teo Ho Pin with such a reason is as good as telling voters not to support opposition candidates if they are PERCEIVED as less than capable.

Mr Yaw, please enlighten us how we voters can justify our votes for unknown candidates, especially those from the opposition, which included you? What moral authority can you now use to motivate your party members?

If honesty is your only answer for your action, then you should just stay being a voter.

[...] Hush [Thanks Peter] – The Kway Teow Man: Yaw Shin Leong is Right! – The Online Citizen: WP’s OS voted for the PAP – The Wayang Party Club of Singapore: WP CEC member Yaw Shin Leong proud to vote for PAP !!! – [...]

Harrison,

I think voters should not support opposition candidates if they are PERCEIVED as less than COMPETENT. However, if the candidate is less CAPABLE than the PAP candidate but COMPETENT, then the voters should consider supporting the opposition candidate.

The message to opposition is that they cannot take the voter support for granted, they have to work hard to field competent candidates to win support.

I would say voters making the decision based on three factors:

1. Impression of the party.
2. Impression of the candidates.
3. First hand knowledge of the candidates.

When voters face unknown candidates, they have to rely on the first 2 factors. However, if they have first hand knowledge of the candidates, we can expect that knowledge carry more weight over the other factors.

Regards.

sarek_home and fellow Singaporeans,

In theory, your points are agreeable. To accept Yaw Shin Leong’s deed, he will have to give us satisfactorily beyond doubts answers for the following questions.

1. Why did he not void his vote instead?
2. Why did he choose to reveal his vote for Teo Ho Pin?
3. Why did he decide to join WP from PAP?
4. Why did he not tell his team comrades that they should not stand for election because according to Yaw’s idealism, they are simply not up to the competition in any sense?
5. Didn’t Yaw Shin Leong know that voters voted for his team not because they were perceived as capable and/or competent enough to take over the PM and his team?

As stated, he should resign and just be a voter or rejoin PAP to confirm his real intention.

The impact of this incident is not limited to YSL alone but the whole of WP. I have no faith in WP anymore unless there are changes in WP before the next election.
With WP contesting my ward, spoilt vote is the only way to go.

YSL and his team has yet to prove that they are capable to serve AMK GRC better than the PAP team. In fact, whether YSL is capable than LHD is questionable.

Judging by his comments, LHD gets my vote over YSL anytime.

Harrison,

I think most people, WP included, knew that voters voted for YSL team not because they were perceived as capable and/or competent enough to take over the PM and his team. The intention of that contest was to give residents a chance to represent the whole nation to show how much the public support and approve Lee as PM.

With respect to your “not up to the competition in any sense” view, I don’t think it is the only yardstick voters use to decide their vote. Voters also consider this:

If the candidate is less CAPABLE than the PAP candidate but COMPETENT, then the voters should consider supporting the opposition candidate.

That is why opposition still contest. They believe they are competent enough that they can win the votes from some people and help the party grow in the process. The actual vote they received serve to justify or invalid their view that they are competent enough.

Regards.

Yaw Shin Leong,

I want you to know that I voted for you and your gang in GE2006 in AMK
NOT because you guys were any better than the PAP candidates. In fact, you
were NOBODY in my eyes. I voted for you guys because of solidarity for the
common cause against those who are making our lives more and more difficult
and our livelihood less and less certain. I voted for you because of HOPE!

If I had known before hand your line of reasoning for what you have done and that
you have deliberately voted for the PAP candidate and informing Mr Ho well before
hand that you and your mother would vote for him, because of your now
publicized rationale, I would NOT have voted for you.

Though everyone has individual right to choose who he/she wish to cast the vote
for but you are a politician, and as a politician, you are a public figure. Therefore,
your overall political platform and projections to the public override your
individual choice. If you chose not to be in congruence with your overall political
platform and deliberately went against what you had told the public to do, then you
had deceived and betrayed us, the voters who had supported you in GE 2006.

You told us not to vote for the PAP but you yourself voted for the PAP and yet
got the cheek to publicize it as though you are hell of a great wise man of the
century. You think we who have voted for you are morons?

From your revelation, I can’t help but think that you could be a spy planted into
the WP. Your loyalty to WP and to the cause of the opposition in Singapore is
called into a big question. Therefore, how do you expect us to trust you any more?

Aggrieved Voter.

Yaw should not stand again the next GE, he will lose his deposit, and drag the whole WP team down.

He should resign from WP and joined his favourite MP’s party. We want real change that we all can believe in. That is a gahmen with PAP as minority and majority opposition as alliance coalition. To achieve that requires total support and loyalty of all oppositon parties. I myself do not want to see a WP majority in parliment becoz they are too PAP like in nature. I dislike a PAP clone. I hope to see a united SDP,New WP,RP and so on. If WP ’s YSL can dash the our hope for change then it said so much of his own believe and loyalty to the oppostion to form the gahmen in the future. He just blew his career away as a politician. Guess he can go help his MP ’s town council for a job.

I, for one, would like to know how the other members of WP voted in the last GE.

As I mentioned earlier, I have a feeling that many oppositionists vote for PAP.

Why would you vote for a party that consistently scores own goals?

Patriot,

I agree with your view that YSL should join back the PAP. He seems to be one of
those who believes “All men are equal but some are more equal” and says to the
voters “Do what I tell you to do but don’t do what I do”.

I would be very afraid of him, who if given a chance to be in a position of power
will tell the public to do one thing but behind the back he does completely the
opposite.

Such a double-mouth or double-dealing person are crafty politicians but cannot be trusted even by their own wives and children. As it is, we already have one too
many of such people sitting up in the ivory towers. Singapore could do less
with such calibre of people even if they are extremely brilliant. In fact, the more
brilliant they are, the more we should be afraid of because on the whole
Singapore will suffer under those kinds of brains.

According to de Bono Hats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Thinking_Hats), we need opposition in the parliament as Black Hats if nothing else. If not, since PAP self censors (regardless of the fact they claimed they don’t), a truly good discussion about Policies affecting everyone cannot be achieved.

Hence, while I accept that his stance is correct, he doesn’t seemed to have done enough thinking to really achieve his stated goal of “better serve the interests of our country”. He is really just being myopic and thinking solely about his own estate/GRC.

Purely from the candidates professional credential aspect, obviously one party would have a much greater edge compared to the rest of the parties. If we want the country to be run like a company measured by KPI, by all means support these highly capable people who make billions of dollars for their companies. But don’t expect them to voice up for you in the parliament, because whatever you hear, is what they want you to hear, and not what you want them to say.

Now, if you don’t eat your own dog food, how can you expect others to do so and tell you how it taste like?

RH:
1. Due to my pc being sabotaged as usual by the ISD above my flat, I had lost my entire Comment and had to recompose it as posted above. In recomposing, I had forgotten some points, which I now feel compelled to add, since the Comments are still incoming fast and furious, by no means ending.

2. I had described SG under the LIEgime as an Abomination and an Aberration. This is to emphasise that Mr YAW would have been right to vote for the PAP if SG were a normal democratic city state. In a normal state, you vote for the best MP for your constituency, then leave him and all the other elected MPs of the majority party to then elect THEIR preferred leaders who would then form the Cabinet. Thus, in a normal state, it makes perfect sense to vote purely for the best MP who would do the best job for your constituency, and then let him vote for HIS leader and Cabinet.

3. BUT SG IS AN ABOMINATION AND AN ABERRATION! So this normal process does NOT apply!

4. For example, SG is too small an islet, so the lines between State and constituencies are blurred, even missing! Most rules, taxes, levies, etc, imposed on constituencies by their TCs are in actual fact, imposed by the LIEgime. There is very little, only token, local govt as opposed to national govt. When you approach your MP for help on any matter, most times, they can do nothing but refer you, with a nice letter if at that, to a national agency. Further, the entire TC concept was devised to PUNISH constituencies that voted in Opposition. NOT because local govt is more efficient than state govt! LIE KY himself made this clear, that ‘if you vote in an Opposition MP, then you must suffer for it by having your entire constituency blacklisted and deprived of monies, services, infrastructure [even MRT stations and bus stops], etc, which PAP constituencies enjoy’.

5. SG is so tiny it can be easily and efficiently ruled and managed by just a Mayor, no need for a Cabinet or govt at all! It is much smaller in population and size than most cities in the world, which only have mayors. So given that our MM or ‘Mayor Minister’ has the entire taxation and law-making powers of a big govt, not just a mayoral dept, he can literally do wonders, from taxing you to conscripting you for the army. Thus, powers and advantages no other mayors have.

6. To put this another way, suppose the mayors of Shanghai, London, New York, etc, also have the same lawmaking and taxation powers that LIE KY LHL have — they would do wonders, too. No brainer.

7. Thus, TCs are also part of the Abomination and Aberration. They are exactly like Parliament, a rubber stamp, for show only. This is why in this A and A, voting for the best TC manager is NOT the issue. Neither is voting for the best MP to speak up for you in Parliament since that, too, is an A and A.

8. Now, we begin to see more clearly the real issues. In this A and A, your vote is not to choose the best TC manager or the best speaker for your interests in Parliament since both TC and P are rubber stamps. So what does the vote become? Just an expression of defiance. A Referendum on the LIEgime, except that, in most elections and even our first and only Referendum around 1962 [on joining Malaysia in 1963], that Referendum was rigged, too, with all 3 Options for joining Malaysia and none against!

9. Thus, politics, especially Opposition politics, are also A and A here. No wonder CST and LTK are so cowed that their only strategy is Stealth Politics, to go so low under the LIE KY LHL PAP radar that they are ignored so that, hopefully, the majority hatred and resentment of the electorate for the LIEgime will keep returning them again and again to their S$13,500pm part time job [since Parliament meets less than ~50 days a year].

10. We all, voters, critics, bloggers, Opposition politicians, must recognise all these so that we can play the LIEgime game more intelligently. They have rigged all the rules of the game but it is possible, by their leave, to get into Parliament by stealth, by avoiding any politicking at all, in this A and A.

11. Thus, we all Commenters and enraged onliners need to see Mr YAW betrayal in these lights. Not a very pretty picture but these are the dynamics that have been created and in place for decades. Only by understanding them, biding our time for the inevitable Death or Dissolution of the Most Hated Man in SG can we hope to gain some leeway at all. These are election basics that Mr YAW and others like him must know, otherwise they will keep making mistakes, thinking that they are living in a normal democracy, with normal rules, and can thus vote normally.

Looks like there are some fans of Animal Farm by George Orwell here.

RH,

I agreed totally with your comments. We dont need a cabinet just a mayor is more than enough. Even the president is extra here.

Shin Leong said Lin How Doong was “unvotable” due to his “performance” and “antics”. Interesting. Let’s see what were those.

In 1988, How Doong scored 47% againt Seet Ai Mee. Shin Leong (probably a primary school kid then) must have thought that almost half of Bukit Gombak residents then were morons.

In 1991, Lin How Doong upped and scored 52%. Lo and behold! An actual win! Against a minister-of-state no less. Shin Leong (probably a secondary school teenager then) must have thought that Bukit Gombak residents should get the IMH project instead of Buangkok Green.

Between 1991 and 1997, during How Doong’s term as MP, what went wrong with Bukit Gombak? The nice little clean and beautiful between Bukit Batok, Bukit Gombak and Choa Chu Kang? What went wrong? I say nothing.

Saying “don’t talk cock” in Parliament? Worse things have been said by JBJ, whom Shin Leong and many other opposition aspirants still idolise.

Now, to Shin Leong, reflect upon yourself. How do your performance and antics compare with Lin How Doong?

Ya true, Netizen Ramseth, there is nothing wrong with Ling How Doong, what performance is Yaw talking about. LTK performance is so so only, just like Ling. In parliament opposition is minority, outnumber by pap.Whatever you propose, they dont accept. What performance you want to judge. You ask questions, the ministers ask you back, and you cant answer, what performance ?? pap played dirty by removing Bukit Gombak SMC, this shows pap is scare of LIng HOw Doong. Ling dare to criticise pap not like other MP who behave like a rat.

Those SMC where opposition obtained 40 + % were all absorbed into GRC. This showed their kiasuness. overall pap have 5 ks. Kiasu, Kiasi, Ke Khiang, Ke Poh and Kiam Siap.

Mr Gary Teoh,

One more K to add: Kilat-lari Mas Selamat !

Netizen Ramseth,

I agree with your observations.

What Ling How Doong now must do is to tell Yaw Shin Leong in the face:

DONT’ TALK COCK!

And all of us will clap and laugh ….. Hahahahaha ……

Precisely. We need people who dare to ask tough sensitive questions and pursue real answers in parliament. Not just giving token speeches with hints and then consider work as done.

Up to now, Inderjit Singh has done a far better job of questioning than anybody else.

We are not putting in opposition for opposition sake. Elected opposition members carry the responsibilty and hope of those who rooted for them. Failing to perform satisfactorily is as good as betraying the support rendered.

YSL must resign from WP…please dont hide behind LTK just like WKS hiding

behind PM ’s back. It is no honest mistake to begin with just pure stupidity. We are

all waiting….please dont setup a COI just like MSK incident what a waste of time…be

a politician that has gut to say it out and the bravery to quit too.

C’mon guys! Let’s write him off and move on! Remember to cast him into the political dustbin of history.

I agreed he is “Finished” and “Outcast”. The same is going to happen to WP if they stick with him.

Lets move on with more urgent matters like the extra trains provided by smrt during lunch hour. The majority (50%)of the promised 720 trains are mostly for the lunch hour timing. What help does it get? The peak hour in the morning and evening are still very very packed. If SMRT is going to raise fares again because of extra trains it provided i say they can go eat “SHIT”!

Being brain washed ? If we won’t give the opposition a chance, nothing will ever change. We will have the same regime ruling over us for many year to come. It is time to drop all past views and single mindedly vote PAP out. One vote may not make a big difference but we must continue to spread the idea of voting the PAP out. After all, the gahment is not make up of one person it is the policies that make or break a country. Take for example,the policy of importing FW/FT which most of us are aware of. For starter, that policy must cease and also our defence policy as well. We are spending a big part of our GDP on defence.Scaling it down and putting the money saved on some form of social welfare for the unemployed will go down like a treat to many Singaporean. A society without humanity and integrity will not survive forever. The ruling regime had grown fat on the labour of Singaporean. Social engineering by importing FT/FW only worked for now as the FT/FW become “singaporised” they will come round to think like us especially if they had offspring. They are there for the money and as long as there is money they will stay. When the money run out, nothing will keep them there. The recession had opened up a few small cracks and a few FT/Fw eyes as well.It is not a paradise island but a slave camp. Some of these FW had gone home broke, worst then before they set foot on Paradise Island. Singaporean could one day be the target of radical group like the American. I just hoped that that day will never come to past.