Connect with us

Politics

People’s Action Party ice cream giveaway criticized as election gimmick

Netizens have criticized the free ice cream giveaway by PAP politicians, accusing it of being an election gimmick. Critics argue that if politicians did their jobs effectively, they wouldn’t need such branding efforts to gain support ahead of the general election.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Netizens have criticized politicians for distributing free ice cream, claiming the gesture is a tactic to garner support ahead of the upcoming general election.

On Thursday (1 Aug), People’s Action Party (PAP) Member of Parliament Low Yen Ling, representing Chua Chu Kang GRC and holding roles as Senior Minister of State for the Ministry of Culture, Community and Youth, and the Ministry of Trade and Industry, shared a Facebook post about her recent ice cream distribution event at Jalan Remaja.

In her post, Ms Low described the event as a success, stating, “What a fantastic day it was at Jalan Remaja! The ice-cream distribution was a hit, and it was wonderful to see many residents enjoying the delicious ice cream we had prepared.”

Ms Low, who is also Chairperson of the Mayors’ Committee and Mayor of the South West District, expressed her pleasure in meeting residents who volunteered to help.

She added, “During the ice cream distribution, I was heartened to meet a few residents who stepped forward and expressed their intention to volunteer with us. Our team had a blast serving you all, and we’re already looking forward to our next community event.”

Concluding her post, the vice-chairwoman of the PAP Women’s Wing thanked the participants, saying, “Thanks for coming out and making the day so sweet and memorable.”

This is not the first time MPs from PAP have given out ice creams to voters.

One such instance involved the PAP candidates for Sengkang GRC, who distributed ice creams at both Rivervale Plaza in Sengkang East and Kopitiam City in Sengkang Central just the week before.

Critics slam ice cream giveaway as election gimmick

The re-uploaded video of Ms Low’s ice cream handout on the Facebook community page “SG Warehouse Sale & Events” — viewed close to 200k times — drew numerous comments from netizens, with many accusing the event of being a mere election gimmick.

One user questioned the decision to visit a landed property area, suggesting that the residents there could already afford ice cream.

The user suggested they go to the mall or nearby eateries where delivery riders wait for their jobs, engage with them, and distribute free ice cream.

Another user responded, speculating that the politicians wanted to ensure they were giving ice cream to residents who would vote for them, pointing out that delivery riders and workers might not live in that Group Representation Constituency (GRC).

They added, “You don’t really think they are here to do a good deed, do you?”

A different user criticized the choice of location, pointing out that distributing ice cream in high-end estates with bungalows and semi-detached houses seemed misplaced when most citizens live in HDBs.

They challenged the politicians to show courage and love by holding such events in HDB areas, which they called the real reality playground.

Another user observed that politicians only appear in the community when the General Election (GE) is approaching, questioning how often they engage with residents otherwise.

Netizens: No need for branding if politicians do their jobs well

Some netizens argued that if politicians performed their jobs effectively, there would be no need for such branding efforts and giveaways to win votes.

One user suggested that if someone does a good job daily, there’s no need for such gestures.

Another user commented that good deeds don’t need to be associated with a political party, implying that if people genuinely recognized and admired the politicians, they would naturally support them.

This sentiment was echoed by another user who stated that ministers don’t need to brand handouts or giveaways, especially ice cream.

If they fulfill their roles as representatives, that should be enough to retain their elected positions.

Criticism intensifies amid Minister’s sugar reduction efforts

Further criticism emerged as netizens highlighted the contradiction between the ice cream giveaway and the Minister of Health Ong Ye Kung’s stance on sugary treats.

One user questioned the health implications of ice cream, asking, “I thought ice cream was bad for health?”

Another user raised concerns about the inconsistency, noting that while there are taxes on sugary products for “health reasons,” politicians are now promoting more sugar consumption.

Users also pointed out Mr Ong’s previous statements about reducing sugar intake, noting the irony of his colleagues distributing ice cream to garner votes.

They included a screenshot of Mr Ong’s Facebook status from 2021 to reinforce their point.

On 30 March, Mr Ong addressed this issue during an appearance on Kiss92, where he responded to a young listener’s humorous suggestion about ice cream consumption.

Ong remarked that while ice cream with sugar is not advisable from a health perspective, he would approve of it without sugar.

The issue of diabetes is significant in Singapore, with over 400,000 people currently living with the condition and projections suggesting this number could rise to 1 million by 2050, according to CNA.

This post was first published at Gutzy.asia

Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Politics

Dr Tan Cheng Bock questions S$335 million Founders’ Memorial cost, citing Lee Kuan Yew’s stance

Dr Tan Cheng Bock has raised concerns over the S$335 million cost of Singapore’s Founders’ Memorial, citing Lee Kuan Yew’s opposition to monuments and suggesting the funds could be better used for healthcare. The memorial, slated for completion by 2028, faces rising costs, with the estimated cost not including operating or land costs.

Published

on

On 14 September 2023, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, former People’s Action Party (PAP) MP and founder of the Progress Singapore Party, publicly expressed concerns over the estimated S$335 million cost for the Founders’ Memorial.

In a detailed Facebook post, he questioned the necessity of such an extravagant expenditure and referred to the late Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew’s known opposition to monuments in his honour.

Dr Tan highlighted a poignant moment from Lee Kuan Yew’s eulogy, delivered by his grandson, Li Shengwu, on 29 March 2015.

Li recalled how, when it was once suggested that a monument be built for him, Lee Kuan Yew had responded, “Remember Ozymandias.” This reference was to a sonnet by Percy Bysshe Shelley about Ramses II, in which a traveler encounters the ruins of a once-grand statue in the desert. The statue bore the inscription: “My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!” But nothing else remained of the empire.

Li Shengwu reflected that his grandfather’s remark underscored his belief that if Singapore failed, a monument would be useless, and if it thrived, a monument would be unnecessary.

“His legacy is not cold stone, but a living nation. We could no more forget him than we could forget the sky,” Li said, adding that Lee Kuan Yew’s enduring contribution lay in the strong institutions he built, which persist beyond the individual and ensure Singapore’s stability.

In his post, Dr Tan echoed these sentiments, questioning whether spending S$335 million on a memorial aligned with the founding leaders’ values.

He suggested that the funds might be better spent addressing pressing national issues, particularly healthcare, as Singapore’s population continues to age. Dr Tan, who served for decades as a practising doctor, called for investments in a home care system, noting that such a move would reduce the strain on hospitals while improving the well-being of the elderly.

The estimated S$335 million figure was revealed during a Parliamentary session on 9 September 2023, in response to a question posed by Louis Chua, a Workers’ Party MP for Sengkang GRC. Minister for Culture, Community and Youth Edwin Tong provided the cost breakdown, explaining that the figure covers construction, the fit-out of exhibition galleries, a viewing gallery, an outdoor amphitheatre, family spaces, amenities, and a five-hectare outdoor garden.

Mr Tong added that the final operating costs for the memorial are still being worked out alongside the development of operational plans.

Notably, Mr Tong’s disclosure did not include land costs.

Lee Hsien Yang, son of the late Lee Kuan Yew, also responded to Dr Tan’s post, pointing out that the five-hectare site in Bay East Garden could significantly increase the overall cost.

He noted that a nearby plot of land at Marina Gardens Crescent, measuring about 1.5 hectares, was tendered earlier in 2023 but rejected for a bid of S$984 per square foot, deemed too low by the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA). Based on this price, the value of the land for the Founders’ Memorial could exceed S$500 million, pushing the overall cost of the project even higher.

The Founders’ Memorial, initially slated for completion in 2025 to coincide with Singapore’s 60th birthday, is now expected to open by the end of 2028. The project was delayed due to extensive infrastructural work at its Bay East Garden location and disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The twin two-storey buildings, designed by Kengo Kuma & Associates and Singapore’s K2LD Architects, will house an integrated gallery and public gardens, intended to serve as a space for reflection on Singapore’s past and inspiration for the future.

While Minister Tong emphasized that the memorial aims to capture the spirit of the nation and foster unity, Dr Tan urged that the focus should remain on practical solutions for Singapore’s future. He argued that a simpler, more humble memorial would be more in line with the founding leaders’ values, allowing the remainder of the funds to be redirected toward initiatives that benefit the nation’s aging population.

Continue Reading

Labour

Jamus Lim argues why Jobseeker Support Scheme is the PAP’s version of unemployment insurance

In a Facebook post, Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim rejected PAP’s claim that the JSS isn’t unemployment insurance. He explained WP’s redundancy insurance plan, emphasizing shared responsibility between employers, employees, and the government. While noting concerns about dependency, he argued these fears are exaggerated, stressing a balanced support approach.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Associate Professor Jamus Lim, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Sengkang GRC, has offered his take on the SkillsFuture Jobseeker Support Scheme (JSS), which he describes as the People’s Action Party’s (PAP) equivalent of unemployment insurance.

The JSS, unveiled with more details during Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s National Day Rally speech on 18 August, has sparked comparisons with the Workers’ Party’s own long-standing proposal for redundancy insurance (RI), first introduced in its 2006 manifesto.

In a 12 September Facebook post, Assoc Prof Lim emphasised that the WP had been advocating for a redundancy insurance scheme for almost two decades, providing substantial details on it in their 2016 policy paper.

“We’ve been thinking about the issue for a while now,” Lim stated, adding that the WP’s proposal has been part of global best practices for advanced economies for nearly a century.

Assoc Prof Lim dismissed the PAP’s argument that the JSS is not unemployment insurance.

He pointed out that the differences the PAP cites—such as JSS being tied to job-seeking conditions and funded from general revenue rather than payroll taxes—are inconsequential.

“Tax revenue is fungible, so it all comes from the people anyway,” Assoc Prof Lim explained.

He argued that funding the scheme from general revenue might even make it less equitable, as it could potentially shift the burden onto non-workers to subsidise workers.

The Workers’ Party’s version of redundancy insurance, Assoc Prof Lim highlighted, envisioned a shared responsibility between employers, employees, and the government to ensure fairness and sustainability.

“We do believe in tripartism,” he remarked, underscoring that society should bear the responsibility for protecting its workers.

One of the central points in Assoc Prof Lim’s critique was that tying financial support to job-seeking efforts is standard in unemployment schemes globally, including in Singapore.

Assoc Prof Lim Addresses Concerns of Dependency, Calling Them Overblown

He acknowledged concerns that such a scheme might lead to dependency, but deemed these fears exaggerated.

“Most people, even in the West, do find value and meaning in some form of work,” he noted.

In discussing the design of unemployment insurance systems, Assoc Prof Lim pointed to the importance of balancing the duration of support with the amount provided.

While too long a tenure or too large a payout could discourage a return to the workforce and allow skills to erode, too little would leave workers struggling to cover household expenses during critical periods.

The WP’s redundancy insurance proposal included a payout of 40% of the last drawn income for up to six months, which Lim described as a “solid-but-not-excessively-generous” sum.

Although this amount is lower than what is typically found in advanced economies, and the duration is shorter than the OECD average of one year, he highlighted that it reflects Singapore’s shorter unemployment spells of around two months.

Assoc Prof Lim also suggested the introduction of greater flexibility in accessing redundancy insurance funds.

By allowing the unemployed to “front-load” their payouts, households would have more breathing room to adjust their expenses during difficult transitions.

With the JSS set to be debated in Parliament, Assoc Prof Lim reaffirmed the Workers’ Party’s commitment to advocating for expanded safety nets for Singapore’s workers.

“Whether you call it JSS or RI or something else, expanding the safety net for our workers is something that the Workers’ Party will always be fighting for,” he concluded.

Continue Reading

Trending