BREAKING: The Court of Appeal has heard Yong Vui Kong’s appeal. After hearing submissions from Mr M Ravi, representing Yong, and the response from Attorney-General Walter Woon for the prosecution, the Court has reserved judgement for a later date.
By Gangasudhan
A facebook status question on a friend’s profile caught my eye today. This lady, who is quite content with her life, asked a profound question which I would never have expected from her – “What makes people think that the opposition party will do better than PAP?” Admittedly, although I felt I could reply quickly, I just was not able to draft a suitable one-line reply.
Well, then what DOES make people think that the opposition party will do better than PAP? The answers are varied and individual as our choice of favourite movie – some are stuck in dead-end jobs that they attribute to the consequence of social engineering, while others feel that Singapore is too money-minded and not really people-oriented. But these are just the reasons why they may hate the government that runs Singapore, but still does not answer the question.
The problem is, I feel, the question itself that is being asked. What is ‘better’? For the businesses in Singapore, it is definitely a more PAP-ish government. For the homeless who are ‘illegally camping’ in East Coast or Sembawang Park, ‘better’ is a welfare-centred government that is the opposite of a PAP-ish government. But for most of us, the question becomes academic – as long as we have a salary, our wish for ‘better’ is just that – wishful thinking. We accept the reality that we will be unhappy till the day we die and that this ‘better’ is simply unachievable.
Redefining the problem
But what if we stopped thinking of it as a matter of ‘better’? Do we need a ‘better’ government or just a different one? Whether the opposition forms a government or a shift of ideology changes the PAP on its head, what we need is actually a different government. A government that stops pursuing wealth-at-all-costs and starts pursuing wealth-for-all-Singaporeans; a government that does not just talk about per capita income in theory or through statistics but one that puts 25% of that value directly into the bank accounts of its people; a government that does not just give lip-service-thanks to the generation that turned Singapore from ‘just another developing nation’ to a head-turner and a pioneer but one that dares to tell this pioneer generation, “hey, stay at home and relax with this $2,000 a month pension for life, thank you for your service”.
But this difference will come at a price, no doubt. Businesses will not enjoy a lot of benefits and privileges that they do today. Perhaps we would not get GST credits, New Singapore Shares, our CPF rates might not be as wonderful and our flat prices would not be out of this world (arguable if this is a good or bad thing). On the flip side, we could very well declare Singapore homeless-free (in reality and not just theoretically), and we might very well be able to see the paradise of financial freedom upon retirement – with reasonable pensions for every one of us.
As much as the PAP government would like to believe, Singapore is a country and no government is bigger than the country it governs (let alone a political party). Not to begrudge the first-generation PAP its dues, the first 20 to 30 years of PAP government truly led to much solid infrastructure being established that has enabled us to enjoy life today. It was indeed a great ‘driver’ of this ‘car’ called Singapore and it undeniably built a superb ‘car’ as well.
But today, the driver has long forgotten that the car is not just for the young and adventurous – it is for the children and for the elderly; for the handicapped and the unlucky too. The driver today is not stopping to let the children play or the elderly to take restroom breaks; it is unwilling to compromise its style in the pursuit of an unreachable destination – money and wealth. And if history has taught us one thing well, it is that you can always have more money but never enough.
The ‘car’ itself continues to be as solid as they come and our economic infrastructure and civil service is established enough to sustain any ‘driver’. What we need therefore is a different driver, someone who cares more about the passngers in his (or her) car rather than that theoretical destination. Yes, the new driver might initially struggle with operating the car – but this is to be expected, and the passengers (i.e. the people of Singapore) need to be patient and be willing to allow time for the new driver to get his bearings right, with the car so well-designed that it would be almost impossible to crash it (ironically, for the PAP).
Suitability versus ‘Better’
One thing I know for sure is that the majority of the opposition have their hearts in the right place – they are not in the opposition camp for the money because it is more lucrative (and easier) to climb the PAP ladder, and we know most stand for values and philosophies that the PAP does not consider high priority. And these are what Singapore, the country, needs – a driver who is planning to do more for the people of Singapore instead of just driving the car on and on at breakneck speed.
And therein lies the answer to the question – it is not as much a question of ‘better’ as it is of suitability. All our reasons for the ‘opposition as a better government’ argument hinges on the common thread that the current one is no longer suitable for Singapore – and THAT is “what makes people think that the opposition party will do better than PAP“.
__________________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
The question is a good one and the answer must be honest. The truth is that a new opposition government will certainly be ineffective, at least in its first term.
This is because the PAP has made no effort to make the government an institution that is governable post PAP. In fact they have put in place measures that would make it ungovernable.
An opposition government that was elected tomorrow will have no control over the levers of government – the staggered parliamentary and presidential elections means that an opposition government will have to contend with a potentially hostile president, will find it difficult to access the reserves, to make crucial appointments to the SWVs, or to make appointments to the judiciary.
They are also unlikely to get the support of the civil service or the military, or indeed the captains of Singapore industry, for whom Singapore’s wage gap is an attraction. Crucially they will also not have the support of the press.
And a new opposition government will just not be up to the job in its first term because of the lack of openness in Singapore’s governance. None of the opposition party members are really schooled in governance, there is no freedom of information act in singapore that allows them unrestricted (or almost unrestricted) access to government information, they have not had exposure to the intimate workings of the civil service and the financial management of the country, and they just lack the necessary knowledge and experience to run an effective government.
One term of an ineffective government is however a necessary price to pay for a systemic change. A new opposition government must pass freedom of information laws, must disclose all the financial dealings of government and must hope that they will be elected for a second term so that they can start becoming effective. I am afraid this is not going to be easy.
It will not be easy because people may not want to elect a government for a second term when they have been ineffective in their first term. But more importantly it will not be easy because in gaining and trying to retain power, they must resist the temptation of righting all past wrongs by committing the same wrongs all over again. They get fed up with a critical press, so they set up a new press that says nothing but good things about them; they feel that elections within four years will be unfair because that would not have given them sufficient time to consolidate and so they cancel elections or render them meaningless with threats about withholding upgrading in constituencies that do not vote for them.
It is worth a shot, but it must be for at least two terms, and people must be ready for an ineffective first term. Are we up to that?
basically pap did good job till 1980s, i think few people will object and during that period, most were happy.
now:
1. maybe they have been in power for too long, they have become obsessed with power and hungry for $.
2. rise of croynism – almost every corner, you see friends or relatives. we can be in self denial but this is happening in ministries and glcs.
3. no participation from public – public opinions never taken into consideration, brushed aside every time. i know best attitude, look at the parliaments and media.
4. cost of living extemely high forcing everyone into high tension, pressure and selfishness.
5. self rewarding and hypocrisy- while the economy was doing badly, the public is asked to set examples to belt up, but they kept rewarding themselves.
6. mps and minsters and civil servants – maybe they are paid over excessive that they dont relate to the ground anymore, most of us dont even know who is our mp and what kind of person he is. We only know when we look at the papers (going for $50k cooking class or buying sentosa cove landed) and on parliament shots.
7. lousy policies – the import of 2M FTs and pushing cheap labour and forcing many rightful citizens out of job. affordable housing? gst is for the poor?
And most importantly, Singaporeans arent happy living in Singapore, that is the crux.
I totally agree with rovk.
Most Singaporeans know that a new government will have problem governing, but most do not understand that this is due to the doing of the current PAP govt. And most will not bear with the ineffectiveness of the 1st term that you talked about, that is, until the PAP had really screwed things up. It could be too late when that happened! Sad!
Upon reading comment#1, reminds me of the current debate in America – are the banks too BIG to fail? Similarly in Singapore, is the PAP govenment too BIGto fail?
Are Singaporeans ready for a BIG change, which will definitely put Singapore in turmoil temporarily, for a better life for ALL Singaporeans in the long run?
Or most people hope that the current PAP can change internally? I do not think so from what I have seen so far.
The questions that should be asked instead are:
1. Can the PAP be voted out of power when they have absolute control over all state machinery including the Elections Committee?
2. Under the present political structure, wouldn’t there be a very likely chance that the opposition, should they defeat the PAP, would become corrupt like the PAP themselves?
Lee Kuan Yew and his PAP were the opposition themselves once.
It does not matter who you put behind the wheel. Real change comes from people not politicians. If Singaporeans are simply going to wait till the next election, its going to be a wait in vain regardless of its outcome.
.
It’s quite impossible to change control in just 1 election. However,by electing more opposition to parliament, they can have enough strength to form a shadow cabinet and learn the ropes of governance while in waiting. this can alleviate the concerns of singaporeans who worry abt a term of office under opposition.
““What makes people think that the opposition party will do better than PAP?”
Just contrast the management of town councils. The two opp parties wards are able to run their areas just as good as PAP equivalent, and with cheaper fees. Most importantly, Low and Chiam demonstrate accountability and responsibility to the public by NOT recklessly dabble in gambling over toxic financial products and end up losing untoldable millions compared to PAP town councils. When these PAP town councils increase Service and Conservancy Charges (S&CC) , they just pass the decree like emperor Lee with total disregard to the public which is the modus operandi of PAP http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC100309-0000101/At-least-2-town-councils-to-up-SC-charges … Look at those mouthpiece of PAP , when report exorbitant loss due to incompetency, they will mask it with headline like “At least 2 town councils to up S&C charges” Can’t they just be specific ? don’t just put at least, put a number which like ALL PAP TC . Even the loss of billions also have headline like “at least”. they lost $100 billions, and they use headline like “at least $20 billions lost” and making public think only $20billions-30 billions is lost. Why these idiots can’t be upfront to the public as they are paid by taxpayers ?
Isn’t this saga good example of how opp party can manage better than PAP ? How corrupted you want PAP to be before you say enough is enough ?
Someone mentioned in the reply and I quote “None of the opposition party members are really schooled in governance”. Well that answers all questions don’t it?
Why do we want (not need) a government that turns round and round and caters to the a wealth for all (OMG, is this edging anywhere near communism???) instead of one that delivers the goods, one that’s efficient and precise and one that works the way we know it’ll work?
Why change if its only for the sake of stopping to let the young and adventurous play more than they already can these days, or to allow elderly to take toilet breaks? Anyway, this Author’s argument is truly and fully ‘wishful thinking’ and again, I’ve yet to meet an argument against the PAP that’s backed by a great, justified warchest of the opposition party.
Unless someone as forceful, idealistic and executable as a certain Obama in a certain country came to led an opposition party, then and only then, maybe I might sway. But Obama’s got his detractors too. It goes to show, you can’t please everyone, but you can always do the right thing for the future’s stability.
PAP are bad drivers, and not everyone qualify to be their passengers.
“rovk Mar 14, 2010 9:40″
You have told us the pros and cons.
Why not you tell us your point of view in specific terms, whether it is worth a shot and that it must be for at least two terms, and that people must be ready for an ineffective first term.
rovk is still very much anonymous so no worry.
Singapore for the poor amd rich, dull and smart, young and old.
That’s a nation. The law of the jungle still applies out there. But there must be a sanctuary called my country my home where there is care. concerna and love. A place for all its citizens through the entire period of their lifetime.
A man has fallen ill. He’s not sure what it is, but it seems quite serious. He took some paracetamol pills and slept, hoping to recover. A few days had passed, but he’s not getting any better.
His friend who visited him told him to go see a doctor.
He refused and replied:
“What makes you think that I will get better after seeing a doctor?”
——
Even in the more likely scenario that the PAP retains power and more opposition are voted into parliament, expect the PAP folks to be more on the ball, shed complacency and stay awake more. Competition is a good thing, isn’t that what the PAP preaches all along?
Remember the Tyrant, Suharto of Indonesia who ruled the country with iron fist . Many says it’s the end of Indonesia when the brave Indonesians finally threw him out through a mass protest & riot. (no options) Yes they went through a rough time for a short period.(calm after a storm).Now Indonesia is very much better and stable. Are we going to do that when all options run out???
Do you really want a society that favours the poor, slow and stupid at the expense of the rich, fast and smart? Be careful about preaching that touchy-feely ‘let’s make everyone equal’ nonsense. It is a simple biological fact that people are not made equal.
If you bring society down to the lowest common denominator, the ones who can fly will have their wings unfairly clipped by the burdens of those who can only crawl. They will leave for somewhere else where their talents actually bring them the rewards they deserve. This process will keep repeating itself until only the dumbest, slowest layer of society is left.
Make no mistake, “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” is an evil maxim. Fairness, justice and efficiency requires the alternative doctrine of “from each according to his ability to each according to his ABILITY”.
Change will not be easy but it is necessary. The non-partison civil service is suppose to serve the people even if the ruling party changes. If the various chiefs cannot execute their respective duties without direction from high power, I am sure there are many able people in the civil service who will gladly rise to the challenge.
My friend who came back from China after a 5-year stint with a MNC told me his first month in China was “hell” as the Chinease manager reporting to him rally all his surbordinates to give this new boss problems at work. My friend simply fired this manager after the first month and move the second man up to the manager’s post. The new manager felt indebted to my friend for the promotion and also felt that the previous manager was creating troubles for their own company by playing politics, rallied everyone to follow their new leader.The rest of the 4 year and 11 months of his stint went really well for him career-wise.
The smart,rich and highly educated today derived from a pool of overworked underpaid 1959 generation of workers that spare no thought but to give all to their leaders and children.
Some from that generation crawl out of their one,two and three room to a better housing of four,five and executive flats come 1985-90 not counting those that upgrade to private housing.
The status quo stood for a good 8-10 years till China became a powerhouse followed by India with us still dreaming of the golden years and Swiss standard of living.
The rot started without question from the top when they could not cope with a fast changing world. Having live in comfort of their pass achievements and living the leisurely lifestyle of achieving study results whilst keeping up with the Jonses was the norm.
The old ways of striving for survival and bettering oneself for a secured future knowing we have nothing but ourselves to fight for was long forgotten.
Today we pay the ultimate price, the sacrificing generation are left behind to rot and look after by kind charities and kind souls with the govt. paying only superficial help and lip service .(no welfare,children should take care of parents when they can hardly take care of themselves) Providing $millions to overseas students, F.talents, scums and what have you not forgetting THEMSELVES.
The young may not be as striving like the early generation but than they have the papers to prove that they are up to scratch without having to compete against FT for the jobs and home which rightfully belongs to them owing to their father’s sacrifice.
Here lies the PAP & Govt. failures,to hold on to the best in everything including the apparent 1st world status.
The sacrificing sheep and their lambs must carry on sacrificing to keep the belly of the LIONS full and satisfied.
What is needed today is a new breed of leaders with new VISION,COMPASSION and willingness to UNDERSTAND the people and their NEEDS.
Last but not least,MONEY is a necessity but not necessary an OBSESSION and POWER is not a tool for OPPRESSION & CORRUPTION.
In this context CHANGE is definitely an ELIXIR OF LIFE.
What makes people think that the opposition is far better than PAP?
1) Frankly speaking,no one knows,its for the opposition to know & for us to find out
2) Change is necessary,change is progression,changes are part & parcel of life,for better or worse
3) The current crop of our parliament ministers have left many of us bewildered,apart from sprouting nonsense to the media & the general public,i hardly see them doing anything substantial
4) Credibility & reputation has to be built on trust,if an alternate govt is formed,we have to give them time to sort things out,@ least we need 10-15 years before coming to a unified conclusion that both PAP & opposition parties have to make things work
5) The crux of the matter is we have no one else to blame but ourselves,we voted for PAP in the first place,we listened to their reasoning,terms & conditions,we trusted them with our mind,heart & soul,but where does it lead us now?!Nowhere…we are all like sheep,following the wrong Shepard
6) For every action,there is a reaction,what goes around,comes around is the old saying,i am READY FOR CHANGE, but how many S’poreans out there do really give a damn about current affairs or the lives of our citizens?
7) Last but not least,for all the work that has been by the PAP govt for the past 45 years,its about time they let the younger generation take over the helm,its time to move on,its just like an NS Training Cycle,job done,get out & do something else,let the younger chaps take over,let these youngsters re-model,re-shape,re-make,re-charge,re-kindle,re-furbish,re-vamp,rejuvenate,to RE-CREATE S’pore in our image,not in PAP’s propaganda where only money matters but ultimate its the people who rule the nation….
Well I guess that’s the crux of the problem. Too many meetings. Too much time spent attending to the big picture. And no time to really speak to the little people.
” Just like in a shop, you only see the sales staff, you don’t see the logistic, admin and management staff doesnt mean that they are not doing anything.”
Yeah, they are doing something, but only for themselves and cronies
- > What makes people think that the opposition party will do better than PAP?”
let the people decide. it is all about having a choice and voice first.
but first of all, we need to have political and civil rights. we need the prosecution of opposition parties to stop. you cant just jail opposition members for gathering to give out flyers (chee soon juan) or just jail them for 20-30 years without trial (lim hock siew etc). or bankrupt them through defamation lawsuits.
in a democracy, there is the government and the opposition. there are always two teams of capable men debating policies in parliament. right now that is lacking, because singaproeans fear. very few capable men want to join the opposition.
we need democracy to take root first. capable men will step up once they see that joining the opposition wont put them in jail for 2 decades without trial…but i dont think i will live to see that day come.
What makes you think the opposition can do better than PAP?
This is a stupid question asked by stupid people. They should, instead, ask “What makes you think the PAP should be in power forever?”
I don’t advocate frequent changes in political party, but this PAP definitely is a thing in the past and should be replaced by modern political parties. Even Taiwan and Japan have changed governments at least once, why not Singapore?
The recent world financial crisis had shown that greed is the main cause of it. The PAP had implemented a reward system tantamount to greed for the top decision makers of up to 24 months bonus as long as they meet certain objects.
1.What you have was for years, those who take public transport to work had to face the squeeze and the extra time to travel to work with the many transfer from interchange to interchange. Singaporeans were critisized for refusing to take up jobs in Jurong and strong desired to own a car. The leaders donot even realised that the many interchange transfers added more travel time and eat up the small wages they got. If they would to work overtime, their total time including several hours of travel would amount to more than 14 hours. For those executive, engineers or technicians, any extra hours to finish their work will mean additional hours waiting for transport. There is no bus shuttle service and public bus frequency is reduced. Hence, for many who can afford it, better to have car to gain the extra quality time for family or hobby.
2. Male citizens had to served National Service. They gave 21/2 years of their youth to the nation. They were denied to a place to upgrade to a university education if they had gone to the polytechnics. Their choice was to save enough so that they can persue it overseas for those who cannot afford it. Hence, many married late and in their 40s to 50s when their children were in pre-university or polytechnics. All of a sudden, the leaders decided that these people(except themselves and those at the top) have to give way to the young for the economy to be dynamic. Many find themselves unemployed and greater financial needs for their families. Now they even open the flood gate to foreigners who have the advantage of 2 extra years in their youth to compete with our male citizens. In addition to that, they offer many scholarships and provide heavily subsidised educational opportunities to foreigners. The male citizen had to pay 10% less than a foreigners for the 2 years of NS and on top of that, they would find themselves like us male who are in their 40s and 50s. The foreigners having a head start would find themselves filling the senior positions. I once ask a housewife if a foreigner is given the power to hire, whom would he choose? One from his country or the other Singaporean? Her answer, it is obvious from their own country. The matters becomes worst, with the present leaders putting remarks like “Singaporean are not hungry”. As a foreigner, I would take advantage to hire another foreigner and gave excuse that Singaporean is not good enough. Is it the reason that many young Singaporeans would migrate if given opportunity?
3. In Zenglier Miller Leadership course, I was taught that, to be good leader, you need to set good examples. Even without the latter, the Bible or historically a good leader leads by setting good examples. Good leaders love their people and hence their love gave them the strength to make sacrifices. Are all of those countries who do not linked their salaries to the top earners in industries, corrupted and incompetence? How are Singaporeans encouraged to look after each other and make sacrifices for the nation good. How are we to gell as a nation, if everyone is to follow their examples and become rich?
Just from the above 3 points, do you think an alternative party is not able to bring together a competence team of Singaporeans who are smart, internationally aware and capable, and who love the nation and are willing to lead by examples. Do you think, those who are in the opposition now are not making greater sacrifices than PAP and had no love for Singapore? Singaporeans you decide whom you can trust?
i don’t think singapore with ~3 million citizens (not counting foreigners/PRs etc) should have a dearth of talent as we perceive. the main reason is the climate of fear. those who genuinely want to serve the ppl may not wish to join the pap but may at the same time be reluctant to join the alternative parties as well. singaporeans have to show their support for alternative parties which may act as a catalyst for able ppl to stand up and lead. it’s seems to be a chicken-and-egg question as in whether ppl should join the alternative to get more support or whether ppl would only join after seeing more support for the alternative.
it’s not easy to overcome decades of social engineering that has been entrenched in the majority of the population- only pap knows best and the rest is the ‘dark side’. however i believe bit by bit with increasing awareness in esp. the younger generation it’s not impossible to build a new singapore.
LETS START WITH GIVING OPPOSITION A MORE THAN 2/3 OF THE SEATS IN PARLIAMENT
[Should be minimum 28 right rite?]
This way, there will be a check’ in parliament.
If they can spend SGD 10-million to help new ‘foreigner’ citizens N dont help nedy/poor native citizens.
They are out of touch with native Singaporeans.
The PAP is the same merciless, brutal governing party, look at the ISA and serial-numbered voting card.
But LKY did not ahve absolute power when Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Ong Bang Boon, et al were in government.
The one tone governing came in 1984 when GRC was tabled for law, and when the princeling came into politics, in 26 years, a pro-PAP inner circle is built up and filled all level of government and the electoral democracy died a silent death, it reaches the peak when PAPbrought in MPS who are born with silver-spoon, using childern of former MP, daughetr of former perms secs, they are the blessed ones and benefied enormously from PAP, tehy will proetct PAP at expense of common people.
The typical explanation of ministers when confornted with questions on ineffective and failed ploicies, is “they are good for Singapore”, REALLY ? GOOD FOR the 82 plus their gangs in fact.
PAP wins by creating fear, a frequently used trick is to pose the question ” can opposition parties rule better”. TOC article explains well and we owe our children an explanation of whe we surrendered our right to the non-accountability PAP govt — who caused the decline in population, the PAP’s harse implementation of stop-at-two policy.. what made Singapore economies shrunk, let’s ask EDB to open up their record of how little they ahev helped local SME and how many foreigners they brought in for every 10 new job created ?
We need a govt who knows that they are not GOD, who knows that their governing power is to be earned and the are put in place by the people and they are not inheriting the power.
It is laugable to see they still claim that they are “people-action” party, they are self serving “people-fooling” and they have made Singapore poorer ( HDB as asset , what asset, can u sell it and sleep in teh street and claim to be rich ?).
Let’s ask, how many in power have PR status oversea especially their childern.
The issue is not who is better, the opposition or the PAP. It’s about being humble enough to listen to advice from people who only have Singapore’s interest at heart.
Dr Albert Wensimius is a case in point. Singapore is what it is today because of him, not because of LKY or the PAP. Unfortunately, the rot in PAP began upon Dr Wensimius death in 1996. Short of any good ideas-men; the PAP has made one mistake after another and bastardize Singapore into a money-making venture for the PAP.
If the opposition is humble enough to find people of Dr Wensimius’ calibre (eg. Mr Paul Krugman) and listen to their advice, I don’t see a problem of them taking over the PAP.
However, the opposition needs to overcome many hurdles. Eg. the PAP purposely witheld vital information from our late President Mr Ong Teng Chiong until he is unable to do his job properly as a keeper of our national reserves. So the opposition will have to find a way to expose the many cover-ups by the PAP. That is the hardest thing for them to do, unless all of the PAP and their cronies are kicked out of Parliament and our govt/stat boards.
People fear the unknown, especially with the mantra of kiasu. Always going on about is it better? whats better in it for me? How am I going to profit? The word better used alone is a term for cowards.
What we should use is “For better or worse”. If we’ve been stuck to a single choice for so long, we have become afraid of change and are comfortable in the way things are. How would we know that the grass is greener on the other side if we don’t cross it to see for ourselves? Change is a mono-directional term. We can change for the better or learn from our mistakes if things turn out worse but taking the first step has always been the most important one.
So you can make a choice and change the way you live or you can just go back home and massage your own narcissistic ego, the choice is up to you.
everything is wishful thinking.
any action by anyone, and he/she will be taken by the ISD.
if u have money, leave Sinkapore and wait for the old man and his dog to die.
but if u r like me, too f-ing bad. we’ll just have to wait here.
i do not mind wishful thinking and passing the problem to future generations.
this is because i still need to survive, find a job and stuff. getting charged for opposing the PAP government would make me unemployable. and i will f***ing starve to death somewhere because of how good the nanny state, that wants control over everyone but will not help them, is. an egg can never break a rock into pieces.
ah, …oh btw, Hitler thought of himself as the Messiah. lol, but actually has a fetish of getting humiliated in the toilet, and was pretty much having sex with his mom and niece.
interesting, is it not?
it turns out that he has a heart of a little boy that wants to be abused. lol…
i forgot to mention this very important fact:
this ISD is the same ISD that let a terrorist escape from the f***ing toilet, who limped and swam to Johor.
it is very apparent to me that the ISD can only catch plankton, but the killer whales get away.
We know that there is little hope under the PAP govt. since they still insisted what they do is right. Listen to the people, not what you think is good for you.
Changing the driver? definitely yes. It is better to sacrifice now for the sake of our future generations.
opposition parties today are far different. they have within themselves members and candidates who are former civil servants. furthermore they have support from many civil servants including in areas such as defense, police etc where they toe the PAP line while on duty but within them and implicitly they are in favour of opposition parties. should the opposition parities take over the government, these civil servants will pose no resistance to the new government and instead be strongly supporting. as for the rest of civil service, they just duly do their work and they will continue to support the new government. the ones in the civil service who will obstruct the new government will be those whose positions are insecure. these will be officers who climbed up through patronising their superiors, backstabing their rivals, through cronism and nepotism etc. it will also include supporters of PAP who have been benefiting due to the unfair standards set by PAP system. it wont take a lot for the new government to weed out these obstructors.
therefore the claims that opposition parities cannot make it within the first term is untrue. its based on perceptions and not evidence. it will be far more difficult if singapore was like malaysia or thailand where the civil servants have a strong allegiance to political parties.
Gangashudan, you may well be right. And, of course, it is the people’s decision, not only which party they want, but the kind of objectives the government should aim for.
I know I will vote for a government that can deliver economic growth.
Philip – it is easy to deliver economic growth. they can lose every cents outside, BUT they can resort to pumping money from singaporean sheeps through hdb, erp, electricity, transport, gst, property and all sort of hikes and levies.
Opposition’s can do better than PAP provided they form an alliance.50 years ago when PAP starts to govern Singapore,foreign expertise were their advisor’s on how to develop Singapore till what it is now.One example,a Dutchman was the one who proposed on how to develop Jurong as an industrial area,PAP doesn’t but they got the credit.
On paper it look good that number of SMC’s will be increase during next GE.There’s a catch,PAP might bring in their proxy candidates/parties to contest in three cornered fight to give true opposition disadvantages.It could apply to GRC’s too.
Sure. I don’t care which political party is voted in – as long as they leave the fundamentals unchanged. If the WP can deliver better results, I would vote for them, but I’m not convinced that it is possible to deliver better results by going towards the European socialist-lite system with dangerously strong unions and a dependency culture.
I just don’t want to throw the baby out together with the bath water. I definitely don’t want to buy the bill of goods some in the opposition are trying to sell me. I find that WP is a party that has some good people in it. I’ll be interested to learn more about what they propose to do. As for SOME other opposition party, forget it.
Sure. I don’t care which political party is voted in – as long as they leave the fundamentals unchanged.
meanin what? must still retained leekuanyew as mental minister and the prataman as the keymaster? you called this a fair erections?
If Singaporeans are merely going to vote a party on the basis of economic growth alone – it is sad indeed and I shudder to think what would become of Singapore in the years to come.
I feel that my life in the past 5 years has improved and thus will vote for the PAP.
I do not believe that the old people should get pension. Because when i am old and should be getting my pension, the government of the day like the Greek government of today may have run into financial problems and start renegeing on their pension promises,
ludwig @ Mar 14, 2010 23:07
Good, I’ll hold you to your words.
MPs and Ministers included as well
ludwig
talk is easy, till your parents run out of money when old and sick and when u reach that point in life cycle, you will not be able to talk so naively anymore, wish you a 100 years life span and run out of medical saving … not a curse, you are simply naive and have not suffered poverty and sick, many PAPies are just like u, live and comfort zone and talk senselessly
The present leaders lack moral courage to face up to MM. They have so much fear in him that will stiffle their best ideas for Singapore people. In order to decide well one must be free from fear. I find it rather odd that GY, LHL, MBT and ohers having the benefit of good education and strong religious backgrounds have until now no comment about the general surge of people disatisfaction of the govt policy. Before we had David Marshall, Ong Teng Cheong, Devan Nair, Toh Chin Chye to moderate govt policy so to speak but these courageous men are too few. Or it the case they are all waiting for the greatest influencer in the party to expire before they give their take on issues. A wise man once said that He must expire first before any significant change is to take effect. Cant wait for that day.
The answers speak well in many Singaporean minds and hearts. This alone is worth voting for alternative parties. I am ready for change and take back from PAP my rights of survival.
The PAP is increasing hostile towards the people and imposing taxes at a freefall levels to fund their ever thirsty expendition.
I dont believe the opposition would dare to raise their pay by three times and as much as ten times over the 15 years compared to the PAP, who feel they r too important as the opposition would risk their political reputation.
But the PAP would dare to and the taxes are imposed higher and higher than ever before while the salary remained low and even decline, except for the gov and gov link sectors.
Anyway, by all means vote for the PAP, I am so extremely delightful to see Sg in freefall decline and with things so expensive and unaffordable. Last year, Sg lost 200B, that is over 15 years of reserve, wiped out with no accountabilty and the gov budget is 60B every year, up from 40B, with 30B unaccounted for every year.
As long as I am unaffected, why should i care for the people, even for Singapore? I am not from a party, so i do not need to care for the people. I do not care for Singapore because Sg do not even have a honest voting system and PAP always win. I hope PAP always win because I already see the future of the needs of the PAP for money. Letting an opposition wins will only arrest the decline. I rather history be the final judge why Sg is doomed, rather than let the PAP accused the opposition of causing Sg decline.
I rather emigrate….bye Singapore!
Singapore observer – I can’t but agree with you. The civil service WILL NOT COLLAPSE! contrary to what people are postulating, unfounded fear. Things will be rough for awhile but will get back to normal. If we keep asking who will do better there will be no end. The question begs, do we want another 4 – 5 miserable years for our older folks and family. The calibre of the opposition has moved up and to me even better than the PAP, and I’m sure too they’re not in for the money. This is our only chance people, we each have one for change in the future or more misery!
Philip – I think the fundamentals need to be changed a long time ago.
From an island first known as “Singapura” to a British trading outpost. Then self-govern city state, under the harsh Japanese occupation, briefly became part of Malaysia and finally got her independence due political differences. Nervous time ahead since 1965. Nationalistic passion peaked in the 80’s when we sang “stand-up for Singapore”, “count on me Singapore” and pledging as one united people.
However this passion has eroded quickly after we strive for growth at whatever cost. The uncheck addition of foreigners has diluted Singaporean-ness to such a heart-ache situation.
The time has come for us to shout “Singaporean Singapore”.
i am ready for a rough ride if a new team takes over- nothing ventured nothing gained.
the current PAP team are too complacent. they have a good life with most obstacles, cleared, they took over portfolios when things are so smooth, yet they with their worldly credentials cannot take things to the next level? & if MSM need foreigners to compare our country with much less developed 1s, tell me things are looking up. rofl…
S’poreans who heed the call to swallow the bitter pill for GDP’s sake, do as told for the past few decades need to assert their rights. if 1 does not fight for their rights, it will be lost. that is the deterance that S’pore holds, in regards to independance, & the very reason S’pore spends alot on military hardware.
over the years, with the words “world class” trumpeted over & over & over again. if people do not wonder why there is a disconnect with what they hear & the reality they live in people will start to question. the ruling party always demanded the world for their services, its little wonder people start demanding the best from them.
if the ruling party truely believe in meritocracy, they would have been replaced already, no need to wait for election. 1 2 save face, those who screw up should DIY step down liao.
the question put forth is a good one- what makes us think the opposition will be better?
the author says that the driver now is ‘driving too fast’, and hence should be replaced.
The question is replaced by who?
So far, I have not seen real alternatives yet from the opposition.
Most of them are practicing ambigious ‘change’ politics that appeal to both sides.
For those who believe that we are too slow, they interpret change to be going faster.
For those who believe we are too fast, they interpret change to be going slower.
So ‘change’ politics without explicitly promising anything is one of the oldest trick in the book
that leaves it open for interpretation.
in US- political parties take a stand. I know republicans are pro-business, anti-tax, pro-guns, anti-abortion etc and the democrats are opposite. I honestly do not know what the opposition stand for. Are they promising welfare state (like Europe)? Are they reducing GST? Are they going to tax business more? Are they giving pensions for all? Are they doing away with CPF?
The problem is no one really knows what they will do. Most people (including the author) just go by the logic that the opposition have a good heart and begin to project their fantasies and wishlists onto the opposition.
I do not know why we need 6 helicopters to track submarines down ?
I do not know why we need NGOs and charities to look after our down and out citizens ?
I do not know why our new hotel style hospitals have overflowed with beds in corridors ?
I do not know why well to do citizens are given cash which they donate away ?
I do not know why our civil servants and elected officials are paid so astronomically ?
I do not know why we need a president and mayors ?
I do not know why every cabinet minister retires with another grand job which rewards higher than their last position ?
Please citizens, add on to the list ….
I am getting poorer by the day struggling with the high cost of everything, especially cigarettes which I derive most comfort from. I am a retiree who has gone back to work otherwise I simply cannot survive. Without my cigarettes I will probably commit suicide.