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“.
__________________________________________________
@ teeboon
I do not know why the MM keep making up new positions at the top of the political structure. (i have a good guess, but im scared of the ISD)
I do not know why Singapore is split into small areas. Singapore is so damned small already. if the PM can not even manage this small island city which calls itself a country, then I do not know why he is the PM.
(i have a good guess for this one also. but im scared of the ISD)
oh, one more question.
I do not know why im scared of the ISD that is supposed to serve the people.
(i have a good guess, but im scared of the ISD)
At this point in time,I can only see two possibilities in the near future for Singapore society.One is, out of the PAP government,there may emerge a more compassionate PM who is likely to change economic policies to be more suited for the lower income earners.The second scenario is,the PAP may be obliged to listen to its citizens if more opposition MPs are voted to the parliament .Unless the present government bankrupts Singapore or if there is a major corruption scandal in the PMO,there is no way,not even in the next generation that Singapore sees an opposition government in power.
@ preston
the only way is to vote them out.
all the other ways that u mentioned will not work. not in SG.
@ (-_-),
I am more of a realist and have no axe to grind against the PAP.Unless or until the vast majority of Singaporeans share the same sentiment as you do,yours is just a wish.
I once heard Goh Keng Swee say,”Opposition do not win elections, government lose elections”.
Except the PAP would say that this is an F1 car, only trained, experienced people can drive it. Would Ferrari or Mercedes use a novice.
Be careful what you wished for.
When things become unraveled, who is going to put back the pieces.
The real problem seems to be the selfish passengers in the majority who gave this driver absolute authority to drive this good car, and as a result causing distress to the fellow innocent passengers.
Everyone wants to be in the fast car, hoping to get a faster ride to their final destination. The absolute authority of the driver allows him to take on more passengers indiscriminately without having to consider the needs of his existing passengers onboard.
Little do the selfish lot realise that the day will come for them to become the helpless minority whose rights for a comfortable ride had been similarly deprived because of the acts of the newly formed majority now.
I agree with Whose Fault? (14.3, 9.45)
The ruling party very much eroded their goodwill, after building it up from independence till now. Much of the good work done by the pioneer leaders have been wasted, resulting now in a bunch of yes men in Parliament. I believe we will go through a change but it will inevitably result with some questionable oppositon candidates before we can see a credible challenge. I would even hope that the opposition pool their better candidates and compete as 1 team instead. Personally, I know one so called better quality/promising opposition candidate in the previous GE at my work place. He obviously has no quality and to me, was just interested in the $13k allowance, hoping for 2 terms to benefit from the pension scheme. He has since dissappeared from the political limelight. Maybe the present MPs also have the same plans but it obviously shows that higher pay do not translate to better quality, just a bunch of yes men who can’t think out of the box.
Yes I think it is time to change hands and allow another party to run the country.
Sadly, however, we dont have a viable opposition party here yet that is able to govern the country.
We are always looking for the opposition to oppose in parliament when clearly we need them to be capable enough to come up and govern the country.
It will take at least another two elections before we can see the opposition becoming a viable force to be reckoned with.
Meanhwhile, all we can hope and pray for is for the ruling party to self-destruct and someone clearly different to come up and lead the country.
LSL is a failure and he has done more harm than good for his clear lack of leadership and ideas. He is merely running on auto-pilot.
Lets hope Teo DPM who may take over by the second next election will do a better job. Not all that optimistic I think.
who is the present driver — is it PAP, LKY, LSL, GCT or even HO Ching?
I would be glad that LKY,LSL and Ho Ching are replaced in near future.
Note I did not advocate to change thePAP in general, it will be very drastic!
WE should propose TERM LIMIT for these important posts. Leadership Renewal in the true sense!
Let vote for Singaporean Singapore!
For those with the line of argument that they would go for a govt that can deliver on economic growth, sure. In fact which country’s citizens will NOT go for that? Well maybe North Korea.
Let’s talk some sense. Which general is expected NOT to win battles? Winning battles is easy, it is winning with minimum casualties to one’s own soldiers that is difficult. Recently, highlighted it takes 5 FWs to dig a hole. Why aren’t we at the point where it is 1 Singaporean digging 1-2 holes? In short, have there been minimal social costs (aka “casualties”) with our past policies? Isn’t the Stop-at-2 policy mainly for economical reasons? What about the most recent Growth-at-all-cost, and Foreigner influx policies?? Wasn’t GDP grown but at social costs WE (i.e. the regular Joe’s & Jan’s) now have to face, while the ministers happily collect 8.8%(?) bonus?
Anyway, back to the question of a new driver. When I was doing business in Thailand, I went thru’ 4-5 drivers before settling on one that is honest and not so greedy. Only thing he wasn’t too sure of the places I had to go to — it just take time in the first 1-2 attempts(sometime is like the blind leading the blind, and time IS money esp. when overseas). The other 4 can have good knowledge of how to get from A to B, but ultimately, it is attitude that matters to me. They can hold you ransom or really play punk once they know you are too dependence on them — don’t tip them well, and I can miss my evening flight back home.
So, I guess it is a risk with new members in Parliament – whenever the party or affliliation. Didn’t we had a complete change in the NMPs? Were they OK, or washed out? I think a few of that batch had potential to bring out a better Singapore — if given more terms in office, increased exposure in dealing with the incumbent, more voting power with their allocated presence in parliament, etc. What about the current generation of newbies in PAP? WHAT HAVE THEY DELIVER SO FAR that is a quantum change from the old guard? Highest civil servant pay in the world??!!
To me, the first change for true-blue Singaporeans is to install a political system so that we can vote OUT any idiot that happens to end up in parliament. This wouldn’t be easy and the current opposition parties may not be the best way in the short- and/or long-term. But, hey, we have to start somewhere, somehow, somewhat. Do many Singaporeans want to take that path? What about our future generations? Whatever decisions our generation fails make will be snowballed to them. Just look at the question of hybrid-Singaporeans now, and those with children posted overseas. Do our children and grand-children have a bright future in Singapore?
Better stopping my rabbling, cos TOC has habit of moderating……
The senator race in Carlifornia … something similar to our situation?
http://failedsenator.com/
We can start by having one to three more opposition members winning in the coming elections to prove skeptical Singaporeans on whether the opposition can govern.
A vast majority of Singaporeans today are independents, and not extreme PAPs or Opposition party. It is this majority that the opposition party must convince before any change can happen. One must remember that today’s Singaporeans are more educated than the previous generations and are more than ready to challenge the status quo that comes from the PAP government AND the opposition.
The continued support in Hougang and Potong Pasir voting communities testify that hard work and dedication to serve the people is the success model for any aspiring politician hoping to run on an anti-incumbent government ticket. But one must always remember that the PAP and opposition party share one similar objective – they are out to win their electoral votes of the people. In the end of the day, the elected MP must work hard, failing which they’ll be the next Ling How Dong and Cheo Chai Chen – and this principle applies to the PAP or opposition member. It is a a raw deal, but the opposition party member has to work doubly hard to convinced the comfortable majority that change is OK, and the majority should place some faith in them for the risk they undertake to vote in a opposition member into parliament.
The PAP government has clearly lost its way in recent years, and it is time for the opposition parties to plan effectively for 2012. I continue to be impressed by Mr. Low Thia Kiang and fondly remember that Mr. Chiam See Tong defeated a certain Mr. Mah Bow Tan to claim Potong Pasir in the early eighties. They have proved to be great political leaders in the opposition camp who have successfully proved to Singaporeans that they can govern in their own style and based solely on merit.
The question is whether other aspiring opposition party can emulate these two fine gentlemen (who happens to be civil in their opposition to the government, and do not need marches or demonstrations to prove a point). If there are such aspiring opposition candidates out there in Singapore, then there is hope that this conclusion in this article will happen eventually, probably in the generation of our children, but a change nonetheless.
B.F.
Economic Fact
Ref: Adamly , Mar 14, 2010 23:32
The present leaders lack moral courage to face up to MM. ….T 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.
Agreeing with you.
The key differences are
1) In 50 to early 80s, PAP used to be top down and bottom up met halfway, party leaders gave their ears and listened to ground troop, there were many courageous ground troop commanders who spoke their minds.
2) Today, MP are at the mercy of party CEC, they can be thrown out of GRC anytime if they offend their bosses, because they came into parliament with no voters’ mandate, through GRC or uncontested wards.
3) The new PAP, especially those elected in 2006 and 2001 came in with a blank mind on political values, they thought that their academical qualification, connection to leaders ( the princes and princesses ) and blind loyalty is all required to be leaders, and they treat LKY as GOD who will mercilessly cramp down on any dissendent ( see how LKY slammed then “people voice” MP Tan Cheng Bock in Parliament in 2004, and Tan’s schoolmate Goh CT dared not even say a word !).
4) After two full terms as MP ($23,000 per month) they will get ”retirement” pension, ( versus us struggling with medical cost when aged) and they will get high post in private sector or get a do-nothing-draw-million-salary” post in NTUC, GIC.
This is conflict of interest and we must not let this go any further !
@ preston
i AM being a realist by saying that things will not change to become pro-people unless the opposition is voted in and/or there are more opposition in the parliament.
What’s the difference between old & new drivers, both who may not deliver on their roles? Old one knows how to wayang day-in-day-out-collect-high pay, new one can be fired after period of probation. Isn’t that how businesses can be productive, to be progressive without dead-weights in tow? Wonder why our Productivity Minister (if there’s one) doesn’t know this, or wait 10 years to acknowledge 5 FWs to dig one hole? Must be f*****g blind these years.
Let’s look to history.. We see Dr Sun Yat Sun overthrown the Qing dynasty.. Just imagine that if the people are afraid and asked the same question “What makes people think that Dr Sun Yat Sun can do better than the Qing emperor?”.. If the people then didn’t have the courage and determination to support Dr Sun, where would China be today?
Remember people, we are not changing just for the sake of changing.. We have to ask ourselves.. Are our futures and our children’s futures bright? Are we able to see beyond the next 10 years, 20years or more?
Just look at the kind of pap mps we have now.. Questions such as “secret to staying young” was asked of Khaw, in a parliament session…
//ludwig
if your govt doesn’t want to implement state pension, then return the CPF monies to people.
it is afterall their monies.
What they are doing now is to implement state pension with CPF life?
You just contradicted yourself
am i the only who feel some prefer a higher level of certainty, even if that certainty is negative?
there are reasons why in the past women put up with abusive husbands, womanising hushands, because there is a social stigma attached to being divorced back then. can the problem with people hilding back be a matter of mindset? like fear that paralyses a prey, the fear if not overcomed, will mean certain death.
i guess certain death is a certainty some prefer?
The PAP government will be around for a while until the day they became corrupt and or screwed it up real bad. Another plausible scenario would be – when MM is no longer around. I am sure more (oppositions) and individuals are waiting for the day to make a comeback.
The opposition may not be better, but they definitely could not be worse.
no one has the right to say opposition can or cannot because they have always been denied by none other than the people whom opposition, who sacrificed by stepping forward to voice up for the people, is trying to represent .
“European socialist-lite system with dangerously strong unions and a dependency culture”
Please stop using such lame and generalised argument. Do you know the top economic body in the world now and where does most of these countries come from? Do you know the top exporters in the world and where they are situated? Do you know how many of the MNC that created jobs in Singapore come from?
What MNCs that our hardworking weak union and non dependent culture have produced? 0 get it 0.
Their concern n everything first for foreigners and ‘foreign’ new citizens will be their downfall.
@ikanbilis
Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low is doing fine work in their wards, and it’s down to organization and dedication to the cause which convince the voters to take the risk and send an opposition member into parliament. These two fine gentlemen are not denied, and certainly did not “sacrifice” to argue their point of view.
While emotions and passion are useful to convince some disenchanted voters, the fact remains that the vast independent majority will want someone who can do good civil, community work for them.
Simply, voting an opposition member is the voters interviewing the candidate. The candidate is coming forward and say he can do a better job than the incumbent PAP member, and explains why is that the case. The interviewers (i.e. voters) need to be convinced that what the candidate is offering is convincing. That’s a simplistic description, but it’s not as complex as what many set out to be.
I continue to be impressed by the dedication of Mr. Chaim and Mr. Low, and they should be held up as role models for any aspiring opposition member to serve their wards with pride.
In my opinion, opposition members should focus on ward-level politics, rather than national politics, to win votes. Using a national issue may be useful, but it is what happens within the 10-20km radius of the voter that matters to them most. After all, it’s not Singapore which voted in Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low. It’s the registered voters Hougang and Potong Pasir who do so, a subset of the whole of Singapore.
B.F.
E.F.
The problem with the PAP Govt of today is that it can be so cunning & heartless in so many ways :
1) HDB flats are built to generate profits for themselves and yet don’t want to reveal their true costs to us when they insist they are heavily subsidised.
2) Profits derived from investing our CPF funds are siphoned away for their own benefit while breadcrumbs are left for the contributors. They changed the law regarding CPF withdrawals at 55 to ensure continuity of their cheap source of funds at the expense of the contributors.
3) Monthly levies imposed on foreign maids are more than the maids’ take-home pay and yet most of them do not seem have any benefit like a rest day for each work week. Our Govt is only interested in the revenue but don’t give a damn as to the maids basic welfare.
4) They make use of the Police and ISD as political tools to intimidate any political dissent from citizens. Peaceful protesters can be arrested arbitrarily while others close to the powers-in-charge are not arrested.
5) We now know that political detainees in the past have been detained for decades on trumped up charges.
Yet do we see the PAP changing for the better ?
If the answer is “No”, do you think that PAP is still worthy of our support ?
@EU,
Can you explain more on your response to Philip?
Thanks,
E.F.
Charles Darwin proposed the theory of ‘survival of the fittest’. Many of you selfish ppl here think that this is restricted to you and your family ONLY. I don’t believe so – the country (especially a small one) has to survive together. Such disparity in wealth only occurs in a corrupt 3rd world country. Singapore is one of the Asian tigers and the rest of the world has much to learn from you.
Alas you, as a young country, have alot of learn from the rest of the world too. Taking care of your people (especially those that can’t care for themselves: the infirm, the elderly, the immature) and letting the people actually have a say in things would be a good start. What do you think?
Btw the author is seriously deluded if he thinks homelessness can be a reality (even with welfare cheques).
One mindset amongst many sinkees astounds me. Many people have told me that since the opposition has no experience running a country, they cannot vote for the opposition. But, if the people will not give them that chance, how can they ever gain that experience? And really, can anyone do any worse than this batch of PAP monkeys??
At present the opposition may seem weak but once the obstacle (threat of destruction via lawsuit, career suicide & jail) is removed, I can bet you will see the best of the best with the passion to make this country better, emerging to serve. I am betting even some within the present PAP, the good ones, will be happy that their masters are rid of, so that they can really make a difference to their people.
I leave it to readers to work out who or what is the obstacle. In order for any progress, the obstacle MUST first be removed.
To get better, we may first need to get worse. Its like a new business, you will not see tremenduous profit in the first year, but may even make huge losses, then the losses gets less until you start to see profit in the 3 or 4th year.
@Angry_One & @ Please Read My Post
One of the primary reason why the independent voting majority do not give the opposition a chance is because the PAP government to date have fulfilled most (not all) the economic needs of the citizens. For these citizens, the economic needs are more important than the socio-political issues raised here. That is why there is a strong perception of high risk should these citizens vote for the opposition. This is best described by the often-used phrase, “if it is not broken, don’t fix it”, which describes the current political situation facing Singapore.
Both of you have strong views about the PAP, but it will have minimal impact on the majority of independent voters who feel today that the current government is “ok, but not great”. If this perception continues, then we can continue to beat our chest and shout for more opposition party members to enter parliament, but they can only get there if they win the electoral vote of the ward they contest in.
This is why I would ask those aspiring passionate and knowledgeable opposition politicians to work hard to understand the ward they intend to contest and be ready to argue for the right to be their MP when parliament dissolves before the end of 2012. The promise to work on improving the ward has more strength than the argument of checks and balance opposition party members use in the previous elections. To put it simply, the voters will ask what will the opposition member do for me where I live, rather than be part of the overall plan to get more opposition members into parliament. The former worked for Mr. Chiam and Mr. Low, while the latter has witnessed Ling How Dong and Cheo Chai Chen.
So, start by getting 1 to 2 more in every electoral contest and we can take it from there to build a two-party parliamentary system over time.
Cheers,
E.F.
does MM think that his son (including SM Goh) will do better than him?
hmmm, that is why is MM still around? dun have faith in his own son.
@Economic Fact
I realise your point too, but at our current state I don’t think even economic needs have been met. We are seeing more poor and homeless in the streets, our children are deprived of scholarships and university places, our workers are let off and replaced by foreigners… yet, many of them may still vote PAP… because they believe that the opposition will give them a WORSE life.
@ angry_one
You have reinforced my argument that most independent voters do not see the risk of voting in opposition members to be worth taking.
Consider this: the PAP is not a naive political party and is fully aware of the frustrations on the ground in the areas of unaffordable public housing, losses incurred by GIC and Temasek in their investments and loss of town council funds through investments in risky financial instruments. Yet, the PAP-led government continues to offer CPF top-ups, Job Credit to encourage job retention during the economic downturn and other initiatives designed to alleviate (remember this word as I will be referring to it later) the economic pressures faced by the middle class (where most of the independent voters are in).
In this context, so long as the alleviation is tangible (i.e. can experience immediately type like Job Credit means citizens still have a job during crisis), then the positive perception of the PAP government will continue. And rightly so because the degree of “screw-up” as many comments in this posting have mentioned is not extreme enough to convince voters to make the switch to the opposition member. For example, if the losses by GIC and Temasek is so severe that there is no CPF top-ups or require increases in personal income tax, then there is an extremely painful “screw-up” that will promote opposition views in Singapore.
So, it is my view that the alleviation of economic pressure by the PAP-led government is perceived by many to be “ok, but not great”. Till that perception change, I will ask the opposition members to work on ways to improve the ward that they serve, rather than running on the premise of changing national policies. While the latter is noble, it is nonetheless not a practical approach to bring this country to the two-party parliamentary system aspired by many in The Online Citizen.
B.F.
E.F.
Singapore civil servants are just that, ‘servants’. They have been trained by LKY so well that they can only do one thing i.e. obey authorities! If a new government is in place the civil would simply carry on as per normal. If this is the case, Singaporeans needn’t worry about whether things would get on as usual.
The big question is what the military would do and the LKY special gurka special units. If the military were to comply like the civil servants with the new masters, would the gurkas? Would they take the mandate from LKY to protect his family and kill members of the new administration? One cannot predict!
However, if no such drastic scenario occurs, there’ll be period of chaos. Privileged investors, foreign talents, rich crooks and others which would affect Singapore’s economy would pull out. The economy would take a tumble. Panic would ensue. However Singapore would survive even if it doesn’t seem so.
Whatever the case, the present situation would not sustain. As it is, Singaporeans who can are finding their way to run away to another country. Australian, Canadian, US, Britain and other such countries are inundated with thousands and thousands of requests of Singaporeans immigration applicants. It has become rather visible that many middle class Singaporeans and those who made iy under the PAP are leaving or sending their assets overseas.
All it need now is for sometime like the IR investments to fail or LKY’s death to start a stampede. If Singapore is to survive, Singapore has to find a way to change this PAP tyrannical jaguarnaut of a government. Waiting for the old man to die is simply too risky!
@economic fact
You seem to think like LKY that all men are economic animals or mere economic units, like LKY liken Singaporeans to. You cannot grasp that ‘men do not live by bread alone”; animals does but not human beings like Singaporeans. You seem to believe that the PAP by throwing some crumbs to Singaporeans and some sweeteners come election time, Singaporeans would once more stupidly succumb again; Singaporeans would be too frightened to leave the certainty of a tyrannical regime to an untested new government. In this, you are, to some extent, right. However, the situation now has changed drastically. Whereas, it was alright to accept the political bullshit of LKY and lackeys so long their economic futures are secured, Singaporeans no longer believe this to be so. Facts on the ground include their livelihoods and their futures threatened by the cynical policy of the PM to import almost unlimited cheap labour to replace Singaporeans if they should leave. But most are unable to leave and remain to see their living standards eroded and their livelihoods threatened whilst PAP mninisters and members continue to receive increasingly obscene remuneartion at their expense. There is such a thing as moral outrage and a sense of moral injustice. Perhaps, you do not have this notion; you are like the old man, a moral bankrupt!
Your so-called ‘Alleviation’ is simply a figment of imagination of your thoroughly corrupt mind and is an insult to thinking Singaporeans. Your shameless ignorance of the appalling statistics as regards the meagre, one could say almost worthless help of the few for political purposes and even political theatre is symptomatic of the ethical bankruptcy of people like you. It makes one grimace to think also of the humiliation these ‘lucky ones’ have to go through to put a hand out for what is obviously less than adequate assistance. Perhaps, you do not believe in Karma; but LKY is beginning to see the first of it in his family.
Many Singaporeans and I mean millions have believed in LKY and have toiled and sweated with him to make Singapore what it is. In the process, many have fallen through the cracks for reasons not of their own making. But what is heartbreaking is to see the wicked man betrayed them all by ignoring their plights and instead rewarded himself, his family and his cronies by corruption redefined by legal means. This is not the Singapore that the many others have made sacrifices for; like taking lower wages and accepting less than ideal conditions, in earlier days for the sake of nation building. LKY and friends may seem the only ones to make it, albeit through oppression. It’s also a fact that he and friends cannot take it with them. However, their descendants if there should be a revolutionary change would bear the blunt of retribution. Many are already preparing to abscond.
Creating such a slave-master situation for a nation is not exactly an accomplishment given the great boast of LKY that he has brought Singapore to a first world order. Compared to the real democratic states of Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philipines, South Korea, Japan and Cambodia even, Singapore is simply a lesser world however much you may boast of its GNP. It is officially the country which has the highest GINI co-efficient in the world which really means that the people at the top have stole it all. In terms of oppression of its people, it compares the worst among the countries just mentioned and what a shame! You may flaunt your money but they know it’s a sham to cover up the inadequacy of a lesser people. The lowest peasant in Indonesia has today a freer and better life than a bird-caged Singaporean, his HDB flat, a mere economic prison.
Whilst guys like you believe in conning the uniniated, many young Singaporeans today are tertiary educated, have travelled and unlike their parents are capable of walking with their feet. With the core of the educated middle class leaving what you are left with are mostly the less productive and the mass of generally unskilled foreign labourers; poor English speakers who would be unable to grasp the future of new technology essential for productivity growth. You may continue to pump up the GNP or GDP with these foreign trash so that the Ministers and others can benefit from their obscene bonuses tied to these figures but your productivity decline is ensured without any scope for recovery. Off course the Ministers and such like would be long gone with their ill-gotten gains when Singapore collapse together with irks like you leaving others to take the shit. The latter would begin with the old man’s death or the failure of the IRs, a last desperate effort by LKY’s inept son to prop up what is unsupportable. Both events would take visibility soon! Lee Hsien Loong has done notthing for Singapore except reaped the reward of being his father’s son. His wife who controls the nation’s accumulated wealth is unqualified and is in fact an economic profligate! And you call this ‘a first world nation’! Better wake up from your la-la land; the dream is about to end!
@ Oracle
Reading your posting reminded me of The Temasek Review and the reason why I abandoned that site and moved to The Online Citizen. What I hope to have is a civilised debate over socio-political issues facing Singapore.
Firstly, I do not take kindly to how you describe me as a moral bankrupt. Your posting describes the Armageddon of Singapore that will be initiated by citizens who think for themselves. My question for you is: what kind of country do you want Singapore to be, taking into account our small size, no natural resources and surrounded by larger countries that share the same characteristics other than ourselves (hope you can appreciate my effort to tone down the sensitivity of that last description) ?
Even if you hate the government to the core, you ought to take stock on the people of Singapore and ask them if they wish to continue eating the crumbs thrown by the government. These crumbs that you describe are valued by the majority in the country. Perhaps what is considered crumbs to you is viewed by many as policies that helped their daily lives.
Finally, on the point of thinking Singaporeans. The ruling government and the opposition party should know by now that there is a large number of educated Singaporeans who are now qualified voters for the coming elections. It is up to them (yes, this includes the PAP-led government whom you hate to the core) to convince these voters why they should vote for them in the coming elections. Both sides are determined to win the hearts of these independent-minded voters in the wards they contest in. In my opinion, opposition members who hope to be elected will need to work on the ground in the ward which they want to represent. It is these voters who will decide if this opposition member has the qualities to replace the incumbent MP, presumably from the PAP. And for these voters to change their minds, the opposition member will have to convince how he or she will change the voters’ lives in the ward they stay in. That is the Mr. Low and Mr. Chaim model, and it is a model I would propose to any opposition member seeking public office.
Look: Singapore will change over time to a two-party parliamentary system. The Internet is beginning to give the opposition a voice to reach people effectively. The fact is, we are at the beginning of a change in Singapore politics, and it’s up to you whether you want to participate civilly. While I understand your anger at how there are still some Singaporeans who fell through the cracks as you mentioned, the question you should ask is what a opposition-led government will do for them that the current PAP government can’t? The closest answer I got is from the views posted by The Reform Party [Ref: http://www.thereformparty.net/. They are now working the ground and I wish them all the best in their preparation for the coming elections.
Finally, this moral bankrupt which you so unkindly labeled me is looking forward to having a government that can do what the common people can’t do for themselves, PAP or opposition.
B.F.
E.F.
@economic fact
Perhaps I painted you too harshly and I withdraw my judgement and agree to a civil discourse.
No, I do not hate the PAP in general; there are those in it I do admire. My disgust is what Lee has turned out to be. What has been a good measure of a man before has been thoroughly corrupted by power.
I admire your faith that the opposition would be given a fair go but you have to admit to being wrong off course. The electoral system as has been devised by LKY is ensure no opposition government can be formed; eliminating the event of a ‘freak election’, words used by LKY to describe the populace voting for an opposition government. Until the PAP and in particular, LKY has the ‘balls’ to remove the ‘Opposition crippling’ GRC scheme to face the electorate on a single seat system would we know what the people really think. My belief is that the PAP lack the guts to try it but you have more faith.
As to the question of moral bankruptcy, my argument is that the scheme to reward PAP Ministers additional to their already obscene salaries is nothing but common thievery. No where in the civilised world would you find such a scheme of reward; only in the fertile and corrupt minds of tyrants. I am hoping you do not subscribe to LKY’s logic of rewarding his lackeys. It takes the thinking of a MAFIA don to conceive this. Meanwhile many worthwhile Singaporeans are living worse than hand to mouth. This is surely not ethical!
There has never been a problem for politicians anywhere to appeal to the electorate when it comes to the vote. The problem with the LKY regime that they are afraid to allow for fair play and devise all measures and methods to allow the opposition no voice. The serious ones they destroyed ala JBJ and Chee Soon Juan! The question I put to you is how do the people really get to hear the opposition and their alternative proposals with media and speaking opportunities totally controlled by LKY. It is a figment of the imagination to say that the people would get to hear completely the serious alternatives possible. Your belief would be better understood if the Singapore political scene were not so undemocratic. The Chinese in China would appear to have more freedom of expression; it’s an irony!
That Singapore is small is a fact but it is no longer unresourced. Its accumulated wealth if properly managed would allow its economics to steadily improve. However it is poorly managed and LKY has not only allowed family members at the till but ensure that the management and accounting to be unquestioned. It is the mark of a tyrannical regime. Thus there is no way that LKY would allow the situation to change through a transfer of governmental power. There is no, therefore, as you described, possible scenario of a two-party parliamentary system so long as the PAP subscribed to a one-party or one man regime. Unfortunately, the continuance of this state of affairs would only change through a violent revolution or a sudden love of nation by LHL; as Chiang Ching Kuo did when he dismantled the tyranny that was Chiang Kai Shek’s and allowed real democracy in Taiwan. I don’t see it though; those who knows him believes his father is a better man when it comes to personal aggrandisement. My forecast is thus not too far fetch!
I like to believe that somewhere in your faith in a better political situation in Singapore could come about; but if you subscribe to the truth of my argument you would doubt it yourself. For those who believe it I caution a waking up. The powder keg that the PAP has been cooking for so many long years would not be long in exploding. To be aware is to be forewarned!
Economic Fact ,
March 17, 2010 14:25
… because the degree of “screw-up” as many comments in this posting have mentioned is not extreme enough to convince voters to make the switch to the opposition member.
when its extreme enough (the screw-ups), its too late…
@ mice is nice
Well, whether it is too late or not is not up to us. It is up to the Singaporean voters. They measure the “screw-ups”, and insofar, it’s not enough for them to vote in an opposition member on the premise of national screw-ups.
Notice the word in bold. IMO, the argument of “national screw-up” carries far less weight than “where do I live around me screw-up”. It means that voters will only vote in an opposition member if the candidate makes a difference in where they live and is better than the incumbent PAP MP. I can safely say that there is no PAP held ward out there will take the risk of to make the “noble” decision to send in a opposition member just because they want more opposition. As I mentioned in a previous post, that strategy was used on Ling How Dong and Cheo Chai Chen, and the wards were returned to PAP in the following election. Why? It’s not because they grew tired of the opposition’s mission, and frankly, you will probably get more opposition support down there than PAP, but decision to change the MP is not measured by “support”. It’s measure by votes that demonstrate the leap of faith that the incoming opposition MP will be just as good, if not better than the previous PAP MP.
IMHO, that’s how opposition should win elections, and not run on national themes like foreign workers, etc. Sure, they are important, but I don’t think it’s enough to convince the change of the incumbent PAP MP. Sadly, just as there are those who are deeply passionate about the opposition movement, there are just as many who shudder at the thought of losing the value of their HDB flats if the opposition member wins the next election.
B.F.
E. F.
The fact is, we are at the beginning of a change in Singapore politics, and it’s up to you whether you want to participate civilly. – Economic Fact Mar 19, 2010 15:30
Agreed, my vote will add to the growing many whom are yearning for the civil change of Singapore politics as I do not buy the story Singapore will be doomed. I am yearning for any opposition in my ward as PAP’s performance has been deterioating and no amount of last minute PAP working the ground will swing my vote to them.
“And for these voters to change their minds, the opposition member will have to convince how he or she will change the voters’ lives in the ward they stay in.”
Agreed, we need more people to vote more oppositions into parliment to effect the necessary change, not just their ward but the policies that affect Singapore and its citizens.
I must commend your inspirational comments.
@ band of brothers
So long as the opposition run on the basis of civility and convincing how they will make a difference in the ward that they serve in, then the 1st door is open to enter parliament and make a difference.
On the other hand, the tried and tested strategy of beating one’s chest and screaming for democracy, freedom and everything in between makes little headway to the typical Singaporean voter. They are interested in what the MP will do for them, rather than what their votes can do for the country. And that is an argument that any MP, opposition or PAP, must remember when they secure votes for their next 5 years (or less) in parliament.
Idealism vs. pragmatism is a choice that the opposition parties today have to make.
B.F.
E. F.
Economic Fact
March 19, 2010 18:09
It means that voters will only vote in an opposition member if the candidate makes a difference in where they live and is better than the incumbent PAP MP.
that is your opinion, not a fact. of course, unless you assume all voters think like you.
… there are just as many who shudder at the thought of losing the value of their HDB flats if the opposition member wins the next election.
how will opposition winning the next election cause a drop in home prices? where did you get your figures that many have the fear you mention?
@Mice
“how will opposition winning the next election cause a drop in home prices? where did you get your figures that many have the fear you mention?”
You forgot, LKY said so. And many people listens to LKY.
hi randomnessinmind,
yeah, i must have forgotten…
i also listen, but 1 ear in, 1 ear out! :D
@Economic Fact
“They are interested in what the MP will do for them, rather than what their votes can do for the country. ”
Do you have the facts to substantiate your comments, or just your speculation? Btw are you from PMO as it seems you have the vibes of Singapore electorates as I am definitely not the old mold ”what MP do for me, rather than votes for the country” category.
Any national policies will affect the livelihood directly or indirectly of the voters, looked at high cost of living, hdb cost & foreign policies. In fact, a single vote in a collective manner will determine rise or fall of a government far from what you claimed.
Current showing in the parliment by the majority of PAP MPs are really disappointing, I hope you didn’t miss the snapshot of Minister/MP Teo Chee Hean caught sleeping in parliment.
@ mice is nice
Pai seh…I must apologize for not making references. Research is important for any serious postings….
Ref: http://bit.ly/bL5WAE
Valuation drop in opposition-held wards because improvements are not made relative to PAP held wards.
Ref: http://bit.ly/9uvq5e
It took eight years before the Lift Upgrading improvements were made by HDB on opposition held wards. Again, perception is based on how individuals interpret the past and present. In this case, I am suggesting (must qualify lah) that there there could be some “kia-si” (English translation is scared to die, a higher degree of kiasu) voters who will not take the risk of changing to opposition vote.
I feel better now after making those references…..
B.F.
E. F.
@ band of brothers
I’m afraid there is no empirical evidence to substantiate on that specific statement. I make that statement on how I interpret Ling How Dong and Cheo Chai Chen’s loss in the previous elections. Others (like yourself) may interpret differently. So we may have a disagreement on this.
I’m not from PMO. I just use Internet a lot and there are actually a lot of good information online.
Cheers,
E.F.