Here appear occasional jottings of my random musings. Profound or jejune, they reveal the contours of my mental universe, with world history, intellectual history, civilizations, philosophy, religion, society, knowledge, and books as some major themes. Since May 2011, this blog has been exclusively focused on Singapore. All my other reflections are now posted in "Notes from Noosphere" (see link under "Miscellany" on the right margin).
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Vincent Wijeysingha's Rally Speech (text) on April 28
(Video of the speech: here)
The government of our choice
Why are you going to the polls on Saturday next?
Because the government of our country is our choice.
Not the choice of the PAP.
And don’t be fooled by these fears that the PAP has put into our hearts for 52 years.
That things will be bad.
My friends, things *are* bad.
The PAP pretends that everything is good.
The PAP pretends that the $800 you receive next week will pay for the entire GST that you will incur next year.
And my friends there is no doubt, there is absolutely no doubt, that the government will raise GST once again after the elections have finished. Just like they did after the 2006 election.
Getting our national priorities right
Yesterday, the Prime Minister raised the usual fears that the PAP throws at the people of Singapore. Your family is at stake. Your job is at stake. Your childrens’ future. Your parents’ care is at stake. If you vote for the opposing party, things will go bad. Well, I say again, things are already bad.
The prices of basic goods are so high and still rising. In the last week alone it went up by 0.5% again. On healthcare costs: Even if you have very, very good insurance, large MediSave reserves, a single catastrophic illness like renal failure can set you back in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. What more for those who haven’t earned enough to save for their old age?
While we spend so much on defence, we spend so much less on the education of our children. What are we saying? That preparing our children for the future is less important than blowing up that future? Than sending bullets into their future?
Each time I look at a child I think to myself how important is her development. How important it is to let her learn and discover the world, to prepare herself for adult life.
An open message to opponents
My friends, at this stage, I would like to say something from my heart.
Some of you may have read in the headlines about me in the last few days. I’d like to say from this place that I have no anger towards those who caused me to enter the headlines.
Politics is a stressful activity. Not for me, but for other people.
People who haven’t had to contest their seats for the last 20 years.
But having said that, politicians make mistakes. We are human beings, we say the wrong things.
So Dr Vivian Balakrishnan may have miscalculated. These things happen.
I want us to move on and I want to say from this place. I want to wish my PAP opponents the very best of luck. And may the best men and women win.
Personal conviction and motivation
I would also like to say something about my motivation for being in politics, and the motivations of the Singapore Democratic Party which I love. Our party’s aim, has always been the people of Singapore. Not so much for those who can speak their views, although them as well.
But we are moved and worried by those who can’t, or don’t. The elderly aunties and uncles. Our disabled brothers and sisters. Our children who are not doing well in schools or have gotten into trouble with the police. Our young couple who are struggling to set up a family and buy a flat. Our startup businessmen who are very good with business ideas but struggle with the cost of doing business in Singapore.
And the whole of our people who wonder Why the PAP are telling us things are good. That they know what they are doing. But why are we do we see more and more money being wasted, and we are asked to pay more in taxes, levies and subsidies.
SDP’s true agenda
This is our only aim: The people of Singapore.
This is the agenda of the SDP.
To help our fellow Singaporeans. To speak on their behalf. To ask the hard questions. To do the research.
And take us all into the future confidently, with no one left behind.
Let me assure you all and Singapore from this place:
I have no other agenda, than your agenda.
Why?
Because I am one of you.
I also feel the pinch of rising prices.
I also have to think twice about going to the doctor’s when I have the flu.
I also haven’t been able to afford a flat.
I also worry about my parents’ old age.
I have spent my whole professional life working with the underprivileged.
And it is they who move me.
And it is they who move the members of my party.
And if we have any radical idea, if we have any dangerous agenda, it is this:
That ALL Singaporeans deserve to be happy and fulfilled – not just some.
That all Singaporeans deserve to be equal members of this nation – and not just economic digits, as the Minister Mentor once called us.
Because after 52 years of government, the PAP is still unable to secure your future.
How PAP regard Singaporeans
Mr Lee Kuan Yew says we need to be kicked to work harder. Mr Khaw tells us to send our elderly to old peoples’ homes in a foreign country. And Dr Balakrishnan refuses to increase support for the poorest of the poor, and then tells us to mind our own business when he overspends in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
What we have seen over these last 5 years, they have never asked us ’bout what we thought about the policies.
They never asked us if we wanted a huge increase in our population. They never asked us if we expected large numbers of people working for such low salaries, so that your salary will also be pulled down.
Did they prepare us so that we can be welcoming of these new migrants in our midst?
They never even asked us.
Did they prepare the country so that there will be community centres and social services, enough school places and flats and hospital beds to prepare for the increase in population?
They never even asked us.
Did they ask us for our advice on how our new migrants could blend into our community, so they could become loyal Singaporeans like you and me?
They never even asked us.
And did they ask us whether we expected our new citizens to serve in the army like all of us who have?
They have stopped asking us what we wanted. And they have steamrolled through policies, and we are now struggling.
The true cause of our nation’s problems
And let us not make a mistake about the causes of these problems. Let us not forget that it is this government that have caused these problems not through one term in parliament, or two. But thirteen – over fifty two years.
That’s two generations of people. There are more people in this country today, who are not born when the PAP came to power. And it is those people whose lives are worse off now than they were then.
You know on the first page of the PAP manifesto Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong says that they were not able to predict the global crisis in ‘08. That is not true. There were several economists and thinkers and scholars who predicted that.In 2005, no one listened.
In fact in those few years, the Singapore government lost huge amounts of our investment money. And what did they do in the Holland-Bukit Panjang Town Council? They took $8 million dollars of your money and squandered it on toxic investments.
We knew at the end of ‘07 that Lehman brothers was already in very choppy waters. But greed became more important than safeguarding your money. Mr. Goh Chok Tong says: “It’s only two percent.”
Let me say to him from this place, wherever he is in Marine Parade today, that that was two percent of your money, the conservancy charges that people have to struggle to pay on a monthly basis. They took it. They invested it. And they lost it.
They gambled with our money.
This is a government that after 52 years, that is not able to manage, not able to give you the right you deserve.
Where is all the expertise they say they have? Not after 5 years, but after 52 years.
(indistinct) Mr Mah Bow Tan said that if we ran housing services as a non-profit affair we would be stealing/raiding from the reserves. Is Mr Mah saying that banking in huge amounts of money is more important than sheltering our families and our own people? If he does let him come out and say it over these next few days.
But might I remind him, that he was utterly silent when his colleague Dr Balakrishnan gambled away hundreds and millions of dollars, and refused to explain, and continues to refuse us a debate on these and other policy matters.
That man is the leader of a team you may well have as your representative, come May the 7th.
A man totally incapable of either managing his portfolio, or justifying his policies like a man.
In conclusion
My friends, voters of Holland-Bukit Timah, voters of Sembawang, Yuhua, voters of Bukit Panjang. Next Saturday you exercise a choice. A choice I remind you that people have died to secure for us.
A choice between arrogance and service.
A choice between gambling and prudence.
A choice between self-service and community service.
I invite you to listen to what both ourselves and the other party’s saying.
Take a look at our website and our Facebook page.Support us in any way you can, and on that day, put your family first, as the Prime Minister says, put your home first, and send these eleven people into Parliament.
Thank you.
Why I vote opposition: an essay by Richard Seah
[My comment]
An excellent essay, by a contemporary of mine, on the immoral cruelty of the PAP in silencing and eliminating its opponents, including Dr Chee Soon Juan and the SDP.
Well worth reading.
And I fully share Richard Seah's moral outrage at PAP's ruthless persecution of decent and good people.
-----------------------------
(source)
This sharing is dedicated especially to younger Singaporeans who may not be aware of some events in Singapore's more distant political past. And to older Singaporeans who, like me, never made much previous effort to find out.
Some people are concerned about whether their vote will be secret. I am not. I want as many people to know that, on May 7, I will be voting for an Alternative Party - the Reform Party in my Ang Mo Kio GRC. I will be voting against the PAP, as I had done so in past elections. Here are my reasons why.
The past five years have given Singaporeans plenty reasons to be disillusioned with the PAP - the astronomical salaries of its ministers, their incompetence and blunders, their refusal to take responsibility for those blunders, their arrogance and disconnect with ordinary citizens, and so on… along with rising costs of living, rising HDB prices, high medical costs, the influx of foreigners, over-crowded public transport and other issues of daily living.
I, too, identify with these issues. But my primary reason for voting against PAP goes deeper. I articulated it recently during a whatsapp (similar to sms) chat with one of my younger friends, who is about 25 years younger than me. It began quite innocently…
“I dun care about the elections, hahaha,” my young friend messaged. We had, as usual, been joking and engaging in casual chat. I decided to get serious.
“You dun care because you dun have friends who were imprisoned without trial for doing social work and helping the poor,” I replied. “You dun have friends who cannot come home to Singapore, you dun have friends who were made bankrupt and had their lives destroyed by the PAP government.”
“Wah! So serious arh?” my young friend replied. She then went on to say… “But if you vote opposition you won't get upgrading… Ya I know the PAP is unfair… But I am the logic (pragmatic) type.”
Haiz! I gave up and resumed the nonsense talk. But my heart won't give up. I have to speak out what I feel deep inside.
Let me share a story… I will never forget one night, around 1990 or 1991, when my doorbell rang, I opened the door and I saw a small, timid-looking man with a sheepish smile. “I am Vincent Cheng,” he announced.
Whoa! I had been ‘forewarned’ - by a Catholic nun - that she would introduce someone to me. But she never said who it would be and I never expected that it would be Vincent Cheng, the man whom the PAP government had arrested in May 1987, accused of being “the chief Marxist conspirator” and imprisoned without trial for three years.
Vincent had sought me out because I was teaching natural health and he was interested in the subject, as he had taught himself reflexology while under detention. There were no political motives for his visit.
I was well aware of his background. I worked as a journalist with the Business Times from 1980 till 1989 and had written several articles related to his arrest, along with that of his other alleged “conspirators”, including Father Edgar D'Souza, a Catholic priest whom I knew (and who has since migrated to Australia and left the priesthood).
From the onset, I never believed the story that they were out to topple the government via a Marxist revolution. As far as I was concerned, they were do-gooders working through the church to help the poor and the exploited. As I got to know Vincent better, I became fully convinced that he was not the evil conspirator that the government made him out to be. Nor were Teo Soh Lung and the rest of the “gang”, 22 of them altogether.
As the years went by, I began to see more and more cases of people either made bankrupt, forced to flee the country or otherwise portrayed as crooks and liars simply because they opposed the PAP. The late J B Jeyaretnam, Tang Liang Hong, Francis Seow… all had their characters assassinated.
(Speaking of Jeyaretnam, I will never forget the night he won the Anson by-elections in 1981. When it was time for the news, I ran to my car and turned on the radio. The first headline story was about some development in the Middle East. Oh, he did not win, I thought. Then the news came, as the second story. So you see, the unique bias of the Singapore media is old news. And Jeyaretnam's win led to the introduction of the GRC system, yet another reason why I am against the PAP.)
Even former comrades, raised to the highest office of the presidency, were not spared. The late President Devan Nair was painted as someone who hopelessly misbehaved. The much beloved late President Ong Teng Cheong, who tried to perform his duties as a President instead of just being a ceremonial rubber stamp, was denied a state funeral while the late wife of Lee Kuan Yew, not even a public servant but just the wife, received one of the grandest send-offs that Singapore has seen.
More recently, from the 2006 General Election, the ferocious attack on then Workers' Party candidate James Gomez remains fresh in the mind, with the PAP pulling back only when it realized its attacks might have back-fired.
Still, I tended to believe the PAP. For a long time, I believed the PAP's portrayal of Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan as a disruptive force, possibly even a nut case. But the Internet changed all that. Through forum posts and forwarded emails, I began to hear good things said about Chee Soon Juan, by respected members of society that included Singapore's “father of counseling” the late Anthony Yeo. Then YouTube came along and I saw and heard Chee Soon Juan speak. I realized he is not that bad a person after all. Good, in fact.
The SDP was driven almost to the ground by the PAP and, for some years, looked like it was left with Dr Chee, his sister and a handful of loyalists. Its ability to attract some top talents in the 2011 General Election, including Tan Jee Say, former Principal Private Secretary to Goh Chok Tong when he was Deputy Prime Minister, only goes to show that Dr Chee is, indeed, a man of substance.
Or course, I could have acquainted myself better with Dr Chee through his books. Me penning this article might make it seem that I am one who takes a strong interest in politics, the sort who would read political books like The Fajar Generation. No. All I know of that book is its title and that it is about a group of political activists. As I said earlier, I never made much effort to find out.
And so I never found out about earlier PAP opponents, like Chia Thye Poh, who probably holds the world record for being the longest serving political prisoner, locked away without trial for 23 years before being “freed” to live a hermit's life on Sentosa for another nine years. Till today I don't know much about him. But I no longer view him to be the dangerous communist that, for decades, I was made to believe he was.
The Internet did introduce me, however, to Dr Lim Hock Siew, Singapore's second longest serving political prisoner after Chia, imprisoned for 19 years from 1963 to 1982. That happened only last year. First, I read an article about him - at The Online Citizen - and then I watched a banned video of him speaking at the book launch of The Fajar Generaion.
Like Vincent Cheng, he, too, turned out to be a mild and gentle man. And greatly intelligent too. Nah. Dr Lim was no terrorist. He merely disagreed with Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP.
How many Vincent Chengs and Dr Lims are there in Singapore's political history? Tens? A couple of hundred? Never mind the actual number. One is already too many.
Every life is sacred. Every person has a sacred right, not just to breathe and have a heartbeat, but also to lead a normal, regular life without unjustified persecution, harassment and victimisation. When politicians and political parties destroy the lives of innocent people in order to preserve their own power, that, to me, is evil. Or, to use a milder term, let's just say it is immoral.
This is my bottom line: The PAP has no morals and no moral authority to govern Singapore. Because it does not uphold the life and freedom of individuals. Its stubborn refusal to drop the death penalty - including mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers, giving judges no room to consider specific circumstances of a case - only reinforces this lack of respect for life.
The PAP comes across as a party that looks more to numbers and statistics such as GDP growth and it will sacrifice lives and livelihoods in order to achieve those numbers. It runs Singapore as a corporation, a ruthless one at that. More evidence of this comes from the recent public tears of retired Minister Lim Boon Heng over the casino issue and his subsequent affirmation that casinos did benefit the economy. Sure, the PAP acknowledges that promotion of gambling could lead to the downfall of individuals and the breakup of families. But it's okay. The GDP will benefit.
Its pegging of its Ministers' salaries to the GDP – whilst at the same time arguing till the cows come home just to increase public assistance to the poorest of the poor by $30 a month – only makes the PAP all the more immoral.
An excellent essay, by a contemporary of mine, on the immoral cruelty of the PAP in silencing and eliminating its opponents, including Dr Chee Soon Juan and the SDP.
Well worth reading.
And I fully share Richard Seah's moral outrage at PAP's ruthless persecution of decent and good people.
-----------------------------
(source)
This sharing is dedicated especially to younger Singaporeans who may not be aware of some events in Singapore's more distant political past. And to older Singaporeans who, like me, never made much previous effort to find out.
Some people are concerned about whether their vote will be secret. I am not. I want as many people to know that, on May 7, I will be voting for an Alternative Party - the Reform Party in my Ang Mo Kio GRC. I will be voting against the PAP, as I had done so in past elections. Here are my reasons why.
The past five years have given Singaporeans plenty reasons to be disillusioned with the PAP - the astronomical salaries of its ministers, their incompetence and blunders, their refusal to take responsibility for those blunders, their arrogance and disconnect with ordinary citizens, and so on… along with rising costs of living, rising HDB prices, high medical costs, the influx of foreigners, over-crowded public transport and other issues of daily living.
I, too, identify with these issues. But my primary reason for voting against PAP goes deeper. I articulated it recently during a whatsapp (similar to sms) chat with one of my younger friends, who is about 25 years younger than me. It began quite innocently…
“I dun care about the elections, hahaha,” my young friend messaged. We had, as usual, been joking and engaging in casual chat. I decided to get serious.
“You dun care because you dun have friends who were imprisoned without trial for doing social work and helping the poor,” I replied. “You dun have friends who cannot come home to Singapore, you dun have friends who were made bankrupt and had their lives destroyed by the PAP government.”
“Wah! So serious arh?” my young friend replied. She then went on to say… “But if you vote opposition you won't get upgrading… Ya I know the PAP is unfair… But I am the logic (pragmatic) type.”
Haiz! I gave up and resumed the nonsense talk. But my heart won't give up. I have to speak out what I feel deep inside.
Let me share a story… I will never forget one night, around 1990 or 1991, when my doorbell rang, I opened the door and I saw a small, timid-looking man with a sheepish smile. “I am Vincent Cheng,” he announced.
Whoa! I had been ‘forewarned’ - by a Catholic nun - that she would introduce someone to me. But she never said who it would be and I never expected that it would be Vincent Cheng, the man whom the PAP government had arrested in May 1987, accused of being “the chief Marxist conspirator” and imprisoned without trial for three years.
Vincent had sought me out because I was teaching natural health and he was interested in the subject, as he had taught himself reflexology while under detention. There were no political motives for his visit.
I was well aware of his background. I worked as a journalist with the Business Times from 1980 till 1989 and had written several articles related to his arrest, along with that of his other alleged “conspirators”, including Father Edgar D'Souza, a Catholic priest whom I knew (and who has since migrated to Australia and left the priesthood).
From the onset, I never believed the story that they were out to topple the government via a Marxist revolution. As far as I was concerned, they were do-gooders working through the church to help the poor and the exploited. As I got to know Vincent better, I became fully convinced that he was not the evil conspirator that the government made him out to be. Nor were Teo Soh Lung and the rest of the “gang”, 22 of them altogether.
As the years went by, I began to see more and more cases of people either made bankrupt, forced to flee the country or otherwise portrayed as crooks and liars simply because they opposed the PAP. The late J B Jeyaretnam, Tang Liang Hong, Francis Seow… all had their characters assassinated.
(Speaking of Jeyaretnam, I will never forget the night he won the Anson by-elections in 1981. When it was time for the news, I ran to my car and turned on the radio. The first headline story was about some development in the Middle East. Oh, he did not win, I thought. Then the news came, as the second story. So you see, the unique bias of the Singapore media is old news. And Jeyaretnam's win led to the introduction of the GRC system, yet another reason why I am against the PAP.)
Even former comrades, raised to the highest office of the presidency, were not spared. The late President Devan Nair was painted as someone who hopelessly misbehaved. The much beloved late President Ong Teng Cheong, who tried to perform his duties as a President instead of just being a ceremonial rubber stamp, was denied a state funeral while the late wife of Lee Kuan Yew, not even a public servant but just the wife, received one of the grandest send-offs that Singapore has seen.
More recently, from the 2006 General Election, the ferocious attack on then Workers' Party candidate James Gomez remains fresh in the mind, with the PAP pulling back only when it realized its attacks might have back-fired.
Still, I tended to believe the PAP. For a long time, I believed the PAP's portrayal of Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan as a disruptive force, possibly even a nut case. But the Internet changed all that. Through forum posts and forwarded emails, I began to hear good things said about Chee Soon Juan, by respected members of society that included Singapore's “father of counseling” the late Anthony Yeo. Then YouTube came along and I saw and heard Chee Soon Juan speak. I realized he is not that bad a person after all. Good, in fact.
The SDP was driven almost to the ground by the PAP and, for some years, looked like it was left with Dr Chee, his sister and a handful of loyalists. Its ability to attract some top talents in the 2011 General Election, including Tan Jee Say, former Principal Private Secretary to Goh Chok Tong when he was Deputy Prime Minister, only goes to show that Dr Chee is, indeed, a man of substance.
Or course, I could have acquainted myself better with Dr Chee through his books. Me penning this article might make it seem that I am one who takes a strong interest in politics, the sort who would read political books like The Fajar Generation. No. All I know of that book is its title and that it is about a group of political activists. As I said earlier, I never made much effort to find out.
And so I never found out about earlier PAP opponents, like Chia Thye Poh, who probably holds the world record for being the longest serving political prisoner, locked away without trial for 23 years before being “freed” to live a hermit's life on Sentosa for another nine years. Till today I don't know much about him. But I no longer view him to be the dangerous communist that, for decades, I was made to believe he was.
The Internet did introduce me, however, to Dr Lim Hock Siew, Singapore's second longest serving political prisoner after Chia, imprisoned for 19 years from 1963 to 1982. That happened only last year. First, I read an article about him - at The Online Citizen - and then I watched a banned video of him speaking at the book launch of The Fajar Generaion.
Like Vincent Cheng, he, too, turned out to be a mild and gentle man. And greatly intelligent too. Nah. Dr Lim was no terrorist. He merely disagreed with Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP.
How many Vincent Chengs and Dr Lims are there in Singapore's political history? Tens? A couple of hundred? Never mind the actual number. One is already too many.
Every life is sacred. Every person has a sacred right, not just to breathe and have a heartbeat, but also to lead a normal, regular life without unjustified persecution, harassment and victimisation. When politicians and political parties destroy the lives of innocent people in order to preserve their own power, that, to me, is evil. Or, to use a milder term, let's just say it is immoral.
This is my bottom line: The PAP has no morals and no moral authority to govern Singapore. Because it does not uphold the life and freedom of individuals. Its stubborn refusal to drop the death penalty - including mandatory death penalty for drug traffickers, giving judges no room to consider specific circumstances of a case - only reinforces this lack of respect for life.
The PAP comes across as a party that looks more to numbers and statistics such as GDP growth and it will sacrifice lives and livelihoods in order to achieve those numbers. It runs Singapore as a corporation, a ruthless one at that. More evidence of this comes from the recent public tears of retired Minister Lim Boon Heng over the casino issue and his subsequent affirmation that casinos did benefit the economy. Sure, the PAP acknowledges that promotion of gambling could lead to the downfall of individuals and the breakup of families. But it's okay. The GDP will benefit.
Its pegging of its Ministers' salaries to the GDP – whilst at the same time arguing till the cows come home just to increase public assistance to the poorest of the poor by $30 a month – only makes the PAP all the more immoral.
Please spread Hokkien opposition message with your handphone
(source)
As the viewership of Dr Chee Soon Juan's Hokkien video continues to climb, we are going to take the Youtube video beyond the Internet.
As the views on the video approaches a record breaking 120,000, there is still a significant part of the population, especially those without access to the internet, who have no way to view Youtube videos.
We urge readers to download and disseminate it via offline sharing.
Download .3gp format video, for non-smartphones (Nokia, Blackberry Sony-Ericsson)
Upload it using your laptop via Bluetooth connection or Wireless transfer to the phone. Most non-smartphones such as Nokia phones will have a Bluetooth function. Use the Bluetooth File Transfer on your laptop to transfer the .3gp video to the phone directly. Your phone must have Bluetooth option enabled.
Alternatively, transfer the video to the phone's memory card directly with a multi-card reader, or, get the video from someone who already has it, using phone-to-phone Bluetooth or Wireless transfer.
Download .mp4 format video, for smartphones, (iPhone, iPad, Galaxy, HTC etc)
1) Download the .mp4 video
2) Transfer it to your smartphone to be viewed offline if you don't have mobile Internet
3) If the file format is not supported by your phone, use a free Video Converter to convert this video into a suitable format
We are counting on you to reach out to people who have not seen this side of the party and this side of Dr Chee Soon Juan in this election.
The video has gone viral in a very short time, and was captured being played in an electronic store in a shopping centre. Please show it to anyone you know, every small effort will count in our campaign to reach out to the masses.
As the viewership of Dr Chee Soon Juan's Hokkien video continues to climb, we are going to take the Youtube video beyond the Internet.
As the views on the video approaches a record breaking 120,000, there is still a significant part of the population, especially those without access to the internet, who have no way to view Youtube videos.
"My father is in his late 50's and has always been pretty nonchalant or should I say disenchanted when it came to local politics. I showed this video him last night and he was stuck to the screen from the get go.
I guess the part about minister's pay of $10,000 a day really struck him; he couldn't stop talking about it and said that it was not an impression he had of Dr Chee. He would like his friends to watch it as well, so I've extracted the video and uploaded it on his phone so he can share it around."- Richard
We urge readers to download and disseminate it via offline sharing.
Download .3gp format video, for non-smartphones (Nokia, Blackberry Sony-Ericsson)
Upload it using your laptop via Bluetooth connection or Wireless transfer to the phone. Most non-smartphones such as Nokia phones will have a Bluetooth function. Use the Bluetooth File Transfer on your laptop to transfer the .3gp video to the phone directly. Your phone must have Bluetooth option enabled.
Alternatively, transfer the video to the phone's memory card directly with a multi-card reader, or, get the video from someone who already has it, using phone-to-phone Bluetooth or Wireless transfer.
Download .mp4 format video, for smartphones, (iPhone, iPad, Galaxy, HTC etc)
1) Download the .mp4 video
2) Transfer it to your smartphone to be viewed offline if you don't have mobile Internet
3) If the file format is not supported by your phone, use a free Video Converter to convert this video into a suitable format
We are counting on you to reach out to people who have not seen this side of the party and this side of Dr Chee Soon Juan in this election.
The video has gone viral in a very short time, and was captured being played in an electronic store in a shopping centre. Please show it to anyone you know, every small effort will count in our campaign to reach out to the masses.
Ex Chief of Army mounts Operation Save Face
Ex Chief of Army (the man in white), mounts Operation Save Face, ferrying older folks from all over the island to the PM's rally, thus boosting the crowd to 4000, perhaps one fifth the size of Workers' Party rally crowd.
Tan Jee Say: How much did Temasek, GIC lose?
SDP's an Jee Say rebuts criticisms from PAP ministers. (Yahoo! file photo)
(source)
Singapore Democratic Party's (SDP) candidate Tan Jee Say has hit back at criticisms by PAP Ministers over remarks that the S$60 billion cost to implement his economic plan was no "small change".
"Let me ask the honourable minister, did you ask the Government Investment Corporation (GIC) and Temasek Holdings how many zeroes there were in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars they lost in bad investments?" Tan said, referring to an earlier remark made on Thursday by DPM Teo Chee Hean.
"Till now Singaporeans have not been told the true figures of their investment losses. Whether it was in the tens of billions or hundreds of billions? But their refusal to disclose the figures can only mean that it was not small," said Tan.
"That minister, is not small change, it is lost. But the S$60 billion that I have proposed will remain invested in Singapore schools, hospitals, polyclinics…and many other public ventures to benefit Singaporeans," he added.
Tan -- who was the former principal private secretary to then DPM Goh Chok Tong -- was speaking to an estimated crowd of 3,000 at Jurong East on Friday.
The investment adviser, 57, was defending his National Regeneration Plan, which will cost an estimated S$60 billion to implement, to develop Singapore into a "full-fledged integrated services hub for the region".
He argues that the plan could be financed either by selling a portion of assets from Temasek Holdings or through the national reserves.
Tan also took issue with a remark by Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, that it takes at least a decade to accumulate S$60 billion.
The former civil service high-flier, who spent six years in the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI) , claims that from 2006 to 2008, the general government finance had recorded a surplus of S$75 billion.
"That is $15 billion more than my proposed S$60 billion fund and that took place in three years, not ten years as you thought wrongly," said Tan.
Instead, Tan hit back at Dr Balakrishnan for the "overblown" Youth Olympic Games (YOG) budget.
"Tell us how you overspend the YOG budget by over S$300 million? That to us is not small change. We are waiting for your accounts," said Tan.
"Let me give you a bit of advice, Mr Minister. Manage your own ministry's budget well first before you comment about the figures of other people."
Tan is part of the four-member team that will contest the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) team led by Dr Balakrishnan in the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC in the coming General Election.
The rally's last speaker for the day, Dr Vincent Wijeysingha, 40, also weighed in on DPM Teo's comments that the reserves gave Singaporeans a sense of "comfort".
"The reserves are money; they are not there to give us confidence and comfort. Teddy bears are there to give us confidence and comfort," he said.
"Money is there to be invested for the future of the people of Singapore. And it is a very basic idea when the business is doing well, when you're strong, when your reserve is large, you invest for the future," said the social worker.
"When you're in a weaker period, you draw back, you close it, you consolidate. We are in a strong period now," he added.
At the rally, the SDP candidates also pressed on the issue of education, reiterating its stand for smaller-class sizes and a change in the mentality of the country's education system.
Will morality issues influence Holland-Bukit Timah voters?
(source)
A few days ago, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, incumbent MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, quizzed the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in a cryptic manner over a video featuring Dr Vincent Wijeysingha on YouTube. Vivian was alluding to the question of SDP’s position over the promotion of the gay cause. The SDP has responded that it would not be pursuing the gay issue and both parties mutually agreed not to further pursue the issue further.
When Vivian brought up the question to SDP, the first question to most people’s mind is whether the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC contest will be based on public morality debates. Now that the issue is laid to rest, will Holland-Bukit Timah GRC still be the focal point of the public morality debate? After all, Holland-Bukit Timah GRC is a bible belt, home to many Christian churches in Singapore.
Based on the current situation, yes, public morality may arguably still be the focal point of the debate. The issue will not be on gays since both sides came to an agreement not to pursue that. Rather, it will be on the casino debate. SDP’s candidate Mr Tan Jee Say, a former Principal Private Secretary to then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, highlighted the casino issue as one of his main points of contention during his unveiling.
Tan believes that the casinos and the gaming sectors are the wrong type of services to go into, as compared with more noble sectors like healthcare and education.
During the height of the 377A debate, the conservative position has been that the advocacy of unnatural sex could lead to erosion of the traditional nucleus of a family unit. The same concern applies to the establishment of casinos. The fear is that the casinos will encourage the gambling vice, and strain relationships between gamblers and their families, affecting the stable family unit. The gambling vice also brings with it other social problems like prostitution and alcoholism. Even Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s former Prime Minister was against the idea of establishing casinos during his reign.
When Vivian first broached the question of Vincent’s YouTube video to SDP, some observers online wondered whether the site of Holland-Bukit Timah GRC is equivalent to the conservative “Bible belt” of America. However, this is at best speculation, and there is not much information on how conservative residents are in the ward, especially with redrawing of electoral boundaries.
It isn’t a coincidence that Vivian, Tan’s opponent at the polls, was responsible for pushing through with plans to establish the casinos when he was then Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry, and chairman of the Remaking Singapore Committee. The Remaking Singapore Committee was tasked with identifying new sources of growth.
It may be premature to rule out the possibility of a public morality debate. Although this is not about the gay issue, the ingredients are definitely there. We have a member of the opposition voicing his disagreement to the establishment of casinos up against an incumbent responsible for their establishment. So watch this space.
A few days ago, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, incumbent MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, quizzed the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) in a cryptic manner over a video featuring Dr Vincent Wijeysingha on YouTube. Vivian was alluding to the question of SDP’s position over the promotion of the gay cause. The SDP has responded that it would not be pursuing the gay issue and both parties mutually agreed not to further pursue the issue further.
When Vivian brought up the question to SDP, the first question to most people’s mind is whether the Holland-Bukit Timah GRC contest will be based on public morality debates. Now that the issue is laid to rest, will Holland-Bukit Timah GRC still be the focal point of the public morality debate? After all, Holland-Bukit Timah GRC is a bible belt, home to many Christian churches in Singapore.
Based on the current situation, yes, public morality may arguably still be the focal point of the debate. The issue will not be on gays since both sides came to an agreement not to pursue that. Rather, it will be on the casino debate. SDP’s candidate Mr Tan Jee Say, a former Principal Private Secretary to then Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, highlighted the casino issue as one of his main points of contention during his unveiling.
Tan believes that the casinos and the gaming sectors are the wrong type of services to go into, as compared with more noble sectors like healthcare and education.
“What is this 35,000 jobs in the casino? Nothing. You just spend five years, S$10 billion, you create 30,000 jobs for teachers. These are noble jobs, good and meaningful jobs, to invest in the future of children. Not the casino jobs (of) dealers and croupiers,” he said. – Mr Tan Jee Say, reported in TodayDuring the SDP rally last night, Tan emphasised on the social cost borne by society due to the introduction of casinos in Singapore. According to him, PAP ministers have lost their moral compass when they supported the building of casinos which created jobs but with high social costs.
During the height of the 377A debate, the conservative position has been that the advocacy of unnatural sex could lead to erosion of the traditional nucleus of a family unit. The same concern applies to the establishment of casinos. The fear is that the casinos will encourage the gambling vice, and strain relationships between gamblers and their families, affecting the stable family unit. The gambling vice also brings with it other social problems like prostitution and alcoholism. Even Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s former Prime Minister was against the idea of establishing casinos during his reign.
When Vivian first broached the question of Vincent’s YouTube video to SDP, some observers online wondered whether the site of Holland-Bukit Timah GRC is equivalent to the conservative “Bible belt” of America. However, this is at best speculation, and there is not much information on how conservative residents are in the ward, especially with redrawing of electoral boundaries.
It isn’t a coincidence that Vivian, Tan’s opponent at the polls, was responsible for pushing through with plans to establish the casinos when he was then Senior Minister of State for Trade and Industry, and chairman of the Remaking Singapore Committee. The Remaking Singapore Committee was tasked with identifying new sources of growth.
It may be premature to rule out the possibility of a public morality debate. Although this is not about the gay issue, the ingredients are definitely there. We have a member of the opposition voicing his disagreement to the establishment of casinos up against an incumbent responsible for their establishment. So watch this space.
Kenneth Jeyatretnam warns of immigrant flood: Rally speech (video)
(source)
In his maiden election speech, Reform Party Kenneth Jeyaretnam said the objective of the Reform Party is to win a few seats in the coming election, adding that competition in politics will lead to better and more intelligent policies.
He also sounded an ominous warning that the PAP will open the floodgates to more foreigners to enter Singapore again once they form the government.
“Already you can see that. The Reform Party was the first to talk about how the government’s track record was hollow. They always talk about the high rate of economic growth, but the economic growth is created just by bringing in cheap foreign labor. It is not created by raising the incomes of Singaporeans,” he said to loud applause from the audience.
Kenneth criticized the PAP for failing to improve the lives of ordinary Singaporeans as their median incomes have remained stagnant over the last few years, caused by the PAP’s open-door policies to immigrants.
“If after this election you don’t take action now, you will expect the flood-gates to open again,” he warned.
During a speech made last week, PAP de facto leader Lee Kuan Yew said:
“Please be reminded. We still need 900,000 foreign workers on work permits.”
Lee did not bother to explain how he arrived at the figures which did not include foreigners on S and E passes.
Due to the PAP’s ultra-liberal and pro-foreigner policies, foreigners now make up 40 percent of Singapore’s population, up from 14 percent in 1990. Of the remaining 60 percent who are citizens, an increasing number are born overseas.
The next election may be the last window of opportunity for native Singaporeans to reclaim ownership of their country after which they may be relegated to being a minority with the shiploads of foreigners the PAP is mass importing into Singapore.
Listen to Kenneth’s speech below:
PART 1
PART 2
In his maiden election speech, Reform Party Kenneth Jeyaretnam said the objective of the Reform Party is to win a few seats in the coming election, adding that competition in politics will lead to better and more intelligent policies.
He also sounded an ominous warning that the PAP will open the floodgates to more foreigners to enter Singapore again once they form the government.
“Already you can see that. The Reform Party was the first to talk about how the government’s track record was hollow. They always talk about the high rate of economic growth, but the economic growth is created just by bringing in cheap foreign labor. It is not created by raising the incomes of Singaporeans,” he said to loud applause from the audience.
Kenneth criticized the PAP for failing to improve the lives of ordinary Singaporeans as their median incomes have remained stagnant over the last few years, caused by the PAP’s open-door policies to immigrants.
“If after this election you don’t take action now, you will expect the flood-gates to open again,” he warned.
During a speech made last week, PAP de facto leader Lee Kuan Yew said:
“Please be reminded. We still need 900,000 foreign workers on work permits.”
Lee did not bother to explain how he arrived at the figures which did not include foreigners on S and E passes.
Due to the PAP’s ultra-liberal and pro-foreigner policies, foreigners now make up 40 percent of Singapore’s population, up from 14 percent in 1990. Of the remaining 60 percent who are citizens, an increasing number are born overseas.
The next election may be the last window of opportunity for native Singaporeans to reclaim ownership of their country after which they may be relegated to being a minority with the shiploads of foreigners the PAP is mass importing into Singapore.
Listen to Kenneth’s speech below:
PART 1
PART 2
Election Issues: Immigration
Immigration is the hottest election issue.
It is the crux of the multitude of grievances the pervade Singapore: high housing cost, low wages, unemployment and job insecurity, road and train congestion, preferential treatment of foreigners (without National Service obligation), university places, scholarships, prostitution, family breakdown caused by PRC women, alien cultural practices.
The following post (source) reflects the widespread anxiety concerning the future of Singapore.
Let us revisit the Zhang Yuanyuan fiasco (here) last year:
Singapore PR Zhang Yuanyuan was lambasted by Singapore netizens for “renouncing” her PR on China’s National TV. Ms Zhang had earlier returned to China to participate in its 60th National Day Parade in Beijing.
In the CCTV Channel 7 news clip which was circulated widely on the internet, a beaming Ms Zhang showed her blue Singapore NRIC on the screen and proclaimed her desire to serve China, her motherland.
When interviewed by the Singapore media, Ms Zhang was nonchalant about the storm she stirred:
“It’s nothing much. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. They can say anything they like on the Internet,” she said in Mandarin.
Ms Zhang graduated from an unknown institution in China with a diploma and came to Singapore on a student pass. For two years, she studied English at the Cambridge Institute here.
Later, she became a Chinese language teacher at Julia Gabriel Centre for Learning for three years. At that time, she was also taking a degree course in business management at the Asia Pacific Management Institute.
Ms Zhang said she applied for permanent residency in 2006. It took only about TWO MONTHS to get approval.
“At that time, I thought it might be easier if I wanted to travel between the two countries,” she added.
A Chinese teacher is NOT a foreign “talent”. We have so many Chinese teachers in Singapore. Zhang would not be able to work in any other countries like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, let alone obtain PRs there.
Unlike in the past when only skilled workers are offered PRs, semi-skilled workers like Ms Zhang can now obtain PRs in a short span of time. In fact, some of them are even “actively” courted by the government to take up Singapore citizenship.
The Singapore government has eased restrictions for China nationals to study and work in Singapore in recent years.
It has become very easy for students in China to obtain a study pass to study in private English schools in Singapore. However, not all of them are here purely for academic purposes.
Some Chinese girls end up working part-time in karaoke lounges or as mistresses of rich Singapore businessmen. A few even ply their trade along the alleys of Geylang over the weekend.
The relentless influx of foreigners to Singapore had sparked massive unhappiness and disgruntlement on the ground.
Despite concerns from citizens that they are facing stiff competition from the newcomers, the government is adamant that its immigration policy will continue though it will “slow” the inflow of foreigners.
To make foreigners feel more welcomed in Singapore, the government has unveiled a series of measures to help them “integrate” into Singapore society including a $10 million Community Integration Fund to organize activities and events for them.
While some Singaporeans scoffed at the government’s attempts to “import” more foreigners as “cheapening” our citizenship, there is nothing they can do about it as long the incumbent remains in power.
During his recent National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong used the example of PRC BUS DRIVER as a “model” immigrant who has contributed to Singapore.
With due respect to bus drivers, how they can be considered as “foreign talents” is beyond one’s comprehension. Does Singapore lack bus drivers that we have to import them from China and, furthermore, give them PR and citizenship?
Singapore must be the ONLY country in the world which gives PRs and citizenships to bus drivers, cleaners, construction workers, masseurs and even freelance prostitutes.
Even in Hong Kong, which is only a stone-throw away from China, it is nearly impossible for the mainland Chinese to obtain Hong Kong PR after working there for a number of years.
South Korea, which is the two most popular immigration destination for Chinese college students also impose stringent controls on the intake of Chinese workers though it has a low fertility rate comparable to ours as well.
Are we getting real foreign talents to complement our workforce and make us more competitive or are we getting economic migrants to add to the electoral registry as voters for them to vote for the PAP?
[On the likely impact of new citizens on the current election: here]
It is only natural that peasants from China, India and elsewhere will be eternally grateful to the PAP regime for offering them a second chance and better life in Singapore and thereby “repay” its kindness with their votes in the coming elections. However, are they adding to our fertility as well?
The population in 1999 was 3,958,700 – with the citizens and PRs numbering 3,229,700. By 2009 it was 4,987,600 – and a resident population of 3,733,900.
Over the ten year period, while the total population had exploded by 1,028,900 – the number of citizens and PRs had grown only 504,200. [See Ref #1 below]
Resident Live Births in 1998 was 41,636 – and in 2008, it was 37,277 [See Ref #2 below]
Resident Total Fertility Rate in 1998 was 1.48 – and in 2008, it was 1.28 [See Ref #2 below]
After ten years, our total fertility rate dropped from 1.48 in 1998 to 1.22 in 2009. Our population increase for the last ten years is fueled largely by immigration with no consequent increase in total fertility at all.
To put it bluntly, the new immigrants are not having two or more children and they are contributing to our aging population instead thereby imposing a greater burden on our limited public healthcare resources in the next few decades or so.
There is an urgent need to discuss and debate on our present immigration policies so that we will be getting real foreign talents like Mr Kriz rather than foreign “trash” like Zhang Yuanyuan who use Singapore only as a stepping board for greener pastures elsewhere.
Reference 1
Table A5 – Population 1871-2009,
Pg 27 or PDF Pg 37/72
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/population2009.pdf
Reference 2
Table A12 – Live Births and Birth Rates, 1980 – 2008,
Pg 44 or PDF Pg 54 / 72
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/population2009.pdf
It is the crux of the multitude of grievances the pervade Singapore: high housing cost, low wages, unemployment and job insecurity, road and train congestion, preferential treatment of foreigners (without National Service obligation), university places, scholarships, prostitution, family breakdown caused by PRC women, alien cultural practices.
The following post (source) reflects the widespread anxiety concerning the future of Singapore.
Revisited: PRC teacher obtained Singapore citizenships within TWO months
While real foreign talents like Mr Peter Kriz who graduated with a major in economics from Stanford University and a doctorate from Harvard University are denied Singapore PR (here), unskilled foreigners with NO special qualifications or expertise are given Singapore PR and citizenships within months.Let us revisit the Zhang Yuanyuan fiasco (here) last year:
Singapore PR Zhang Yuanyuan was lambasted by Singapore netizens for “renouncing” her PR on China’s National TV. Ms Zhang had earlier returned to China to participate in its 60th National Day Parade in Beijing.
In the CCTV Channel 7 news clip which was circulated widely on the internet, a beaming Ms Zhang showed her blue Singapore NRIC on the screen and proclaimed her desire to serve China, her motherland.
When interviewed by the Singapore media, Ms Zhang was nonchalant about the storm she stirred:
“It’s nothing much. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. They can say anything they like on the Internet,” she said in Mandarin.
Ms Zhang graduated from an unknown institution in China with a diploma and came to Singapore on a student pass. For two years, she studied English at the Cambridge Institute here.
Later, she became a Chinese language teacher at Julia Gabriel Centre for Learning for three years. At that time, she was also taking a degree course in business management at the Asia Pacific Management Institute.
Ms Zhang said she applied for permanent residency in 2006. It took only about TWO MONTHS to get approval.
“At that time, I thought it might be easier if I wanted to travel between the two countries,” she added.
A Chinese teacher is NOT a foreign “talent”. We have so many Chinese teachers in Singapore. Zhang would not be able to work in any other countries like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, let alone obtain PRs there.
Unlike in the past when only skilled workers are offered PRs, semi-skilled workers like Ms Zhang can now obtain PRs in a short span of time. In fact, some of them are even “actively” courted by the government to take up Singapore citizenship.
The Singapore government has eased restrictions for China nationals to study and work in Singapore in recent years.
It has become very easy for students in China to obtain a study pass to study in private English schools in Singapore. However, not all of them are here purely for academic purposes.
Some Chinese girls end up working part-time in karaoke lounges or as mistresses of rich Singapore businessmen. A few even ply their trade along the alleys of Geylang over the weekend.
The relentless influx of foreigners to Singapore had sparked massive unhappiness and disgruntlement on the ground.
Despite concerns from citizens that they are facing stiff competition from the newcomers, the government is adamant that its immigration policy will continue though it will “slow” the inflow of foreigners.
To make foreigners feel more welcomed in Singapore, the government has unveiled a series of measures to help them “integrate” into Singapore society including a $10 million Community Integration Fund to organize activities and events for them.
While some Singaporeans scoffed at the government’s attempts to “import” more foreigners as “cheapening” our citizenship, there is nothing they can do about it as long the incumbent remains in power.
During his recent National Day Rally speech, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong used the example of PRC BUS DRIVER as a “model” immigrant who has contributed to Singapore.
With due respect to bus drivers, how they can be considered as “foreign talents” is beyond one’s comprehension. Does Singapore lack bus drivers that we have to import them from China and, furthermore, give them PR and citizenship?
Singapore must be the ONLY country in the world which gives PRs and citizenships to bus drivers, cleaners, construction workers, masseurs and even freelance prostitutes.
Even in Hong Kong, which is only a stone-throw away from China, it is nearly impossible for the mainland Chinese to obtain Hong Kong PR after working there for a number of years.
South Korea, which is the two most popular immigration destination for Chinese college students also impose stringent controls on the intake of Chinese workers though it has a low fertility rate comparable to ours as well.
Are we getting real foreign talents to complement our workforce and make us more competitive or are we getting economic migrants to add to the electoral registry as voters for them to vote for the PAP?
[On the likely impact of new citizens on the current election: here]
It is only natural that peasants from China, India and elsewhere will be eternally grateful to the PAP regime for offering them a second chance and better life in Singapore and thereby “repay” its kindness with their votes in the coming elections. However, are they adding to our fertility as well?
The population in 1999 was 3,958,700 – with the citizens and PRs numbering 3,229,700. By 2009 it was 4,987,600 – and a resident population of 3,733,900.
Over the ten year period, while the total population had exploded by 1,028,900 – the number of citizens and PRs had grown only 504,200. [See Ref #1 below]
Resident Live Births in 1998 was 41,636 – and in 2008, it was 37,277 [See Ref #2 below]
Resident Total Fertility Rate in 1998 was 1.48 – and in 2008, it was 1.28 [See Ref #2 below]
After ten years, our total fertility rate dropped from 1.48 in 1998 to 1.22 in 2009. Our population increase for the last ten years is fueled largely by immigration with no consequent increase in total fertility at all.
To put it bluntly, the new immigrants are not having two or more children and they are contributing to our aging population instead thereby imposing a greater burden on our limited public healthcare resources in the next few decades or so.
There is an urgent need to discuss and debate on our present immigration policies so that we will be getting real foreign talents like Mr Kriz rather than foreign “trash” like Zhang Yuanyuan who use Singapore only as a stepping board for greener pastures elsewhere.
Reference 1
Table A5 – Population 1871-2009,
Pg 27 or PDF Pg 37/72
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/population2009.pdf
Reference 2
Table A12 – Live Births and Birth Rates, 1980 – 2008,
Pg 44 or PDF Pg 54 / 72
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/popn/population2009.pdf
Friday, April 29, 2011
Tan Jee Say & Dr Ang Yong Guan: Two old friends, one new goal
by Andrew Loh
(source)
TOC managed to sit down with Mr Tan Jee Say and Dr Ang Yong Guan for dinner on the same day they were announced as candidates of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). In an exclusive interview over Hainanese chicken chop at Mooi Chin at the Landmark Village Hotel, the latest additions to the SDP’s team speak to TOC about their friendship that’s spanned 40 years, the level of support they’ve seen since taking the plunge into politics, and some of the causes they’d fight for if they were in Parliament.
How long have you and Dr Ang known each other?
TJS: We’ve been close friends for 40 years, I was one year Yong Guan’s senior as the Managing Editor of the school newspaper in Raffles.
It was quite a distinguished publication: Walter Woon took over from Yong Guan, and the person who handed the paper over to me was Han Fook Kwang (Editor of the Straits Times). We bonded over rushing deadlines and getting stories to press, and eventually we got to know each other very well, even our families. That made it easier when I had to speak to Yong Guan’s family about him joining politics.
When did you start thinking about running for elections?
TJS: Well it all started with the paper I wrote and presented at the TOC forum. I was encouraged by the response to my paper, a lot of people wrote in to me, strangers, old friends, primary school classmates I haven’t known for a long time. Many of them asked me to fight for my ideas to be realized.
My wife was the one who encouraged me to write the paper in the first place, she said to write my ideas down as a book or a report. So I burnt the midnight oil and finally it came about. I called up Sze Hian and said I’m not sure if they’re going to publish my paper or not, and it was nearing the Budget. Yong Guan’s family was a bit more resistant.
AYG: It’s a sad thing, because if you join the PAP you won’t have these issues. I think that in itself reflects poorly on the state of the nation. If you have an interest in politics you have to go in, but in Singapore it’s so difficult. My wife, my children, my parents: all were dead set against it. Jee Say had to talk to them.
When they finally came around, they became very supportive and even came to the press conference today.
TJS: I know them very well.
So, why now?
AYG: Well If I don’t go in this round the next time I’ll be 61 years old. My running mate (Jee Say) might already be an MP the next time round, and I thought since Jee Say is someone I know so well and feel so comfortable with, why not.
I want to be part of that critical mass, that wave. If you noticed the scholars who started joining the opposition, it’s almost like a few waves. First Tony and Hazel, then Ben and Jimmy, so I thought, it’s now or never.
TJS: Well, after the forum I realized that it wouldn’t achieve my purpose to come out alone, I must organize a group to come out. To make an impact you need numbers. And you need to start thinking about an alternative government to implement the policies. To do that you need the numbers. I thought of starting a non-aligned national resource pool to distribute candidates to different parties but eventually decided to try something more direct.
The first person I approached was Yong Guan, who was reluctant but he eventually came around.
Eventually, Dr Wong Wee Nam introduced us to Dr Chee, who had heard about my paper and wanted to talk to me about the ideas inside. After meeting up I realized he was quite a good man, very passionate and the SDP was the only party which offered a comprehensive economic plan for Singapore.
You’ve held pretty senior positions in the civil service, what was the reaction like from members of the establishment when they found out you joined?
AYG: Well before we joined we met up with two retired MPs, one of whom was an ex teacher of ours. The teacher ex-MP didn’t know, but the other one knew and was very supportive, gave us encouragement.
Well I guess the question on everyone’s mind is: why the SDP?
TJS: The SDP’s the only party with a comprehensive economic policy, a dedicated and excited base, and excellent communications policy that’s passionate and committed.
The only thing that worried me before I got to know Dr Chee was the negative public image. But I asked around and I was surprised that even a senior PAP grassroots leader told me that Dr Chee has been demonized by the PAP and the media.
So I met him, and he’s a very nice man, he’s not the demon he’s made out to be. So the positives were there and the negatives were overplayed, the rest naturally fell into place.
I think they welcome us because we add some credibility to the party which has taken an undeserved beating from the public demonization. We hope we can bring the SDP to the next level.
How will the PAP react?
I don’t know. This morning I wrote them an email to PM, SM Goh, Tharman, George Yeo, Lim Hng Kiang telling them, “I wish I’d told you about my entry into politics earlier but I’ve been overtaken by events, but my decision does not detract from the strong sense of respect I have for you as friends and former colleagues. I still treasure our personal friendships and my actions during the campaign will reflect this.”
Dr Ang, you were a grassroots leader with the PAP for a very long time, why don’t you think you can change things from the inside?
AYG: In the intermediate levels you can still make a change, but at the policy level it’s very difficult.
For example the government policies are failing at a very systemic level: the low fertility rate is very disturbing. Although standards of living are higher, fertility rate is dropping. The stress levels in Singapore just aren’t conducive to starting families.
The funniest thing is I’ve seen many families where the couple goes to Australia for a few months and then conceive!
Spontaneity, creativity has been stifled. It’s a sense of helplessness in the citizenry that makes people very selfish and result orientated where the end point becomes more important than the process.
For example, a principle will tell a child to get her depression treated first before taking a major exam, and take some time off school. This is done purportedly in the interest of the child but from my interactions with them I realize that it’s because of concern over the school’s result. There’s a lot of cynicism.
I spent 15 years serving as a grassroots leader in Kembangan with George Yeo, no one can say I don’t know.
How do you sense the PAP is feeling right now?
TJS: There’s an uneasiness. I don’t know if its dissatisfaction, but they’re definitely very nervous. They know they’ve run out of ideas. For instance, Ong Ye Kung’s introduction as a candidate was very disappointing: he said he used to be against casinos but now he’s for it.
AYG: Which illustrates the saying the ends justify the means: that’s wrong. You bring in the jobs but what kind of jobs are they?
TJS: In my paper I recommended cutting class sizes by half by increasing the numbers of teachers. Doubling the numbers of teachers and doctors and nurses, we have 30,000 teachers now, if we doubled it up we’d be creating honorable jobs that will be helping our country advance and at the same time grooming our children of tomorrow.
You can create a lot of jobs in the health sector, PMET and creative industries. We need to set aside a significant portion of the budget to fund creative industry, young people in IT and the creative industries.
I mean, what are casino jobs? The government says there are 35,000 of them, but most of them are croupiers and dealers, and most of these go to foreigners. You prefer your children to be doctors and teachers or be croupiers and dealers?
Mr Tan, you nearly became a PAP MP in 1984, tell us about that.
TJS: Well in 1984 when I was working in Ministry I went through the whole selection process. I went right to the final session by LKY [Lee Kuan Yew] and Rajaratnam, I remember Raja grilled me very rigorously. You know, the last round is the full Cabinet, it’s not really exactly a tea session, it’s quite rigorous.
Awhile after that Goh Keng Swee called me at the office and asked me when I’m resigning to start my entry into politics. I was quite surprised because I hadn’t heard back from the party yet. Not long after I was told by my Minister then, Tony Tan, that they wanted me to establish my career first as I was too young.
I was 30 years old that year, two years younger than Lee Hsien Loong. That was his first round running.
I knew Goh Keng Swee because I worked with him for a special project where he was advising the President of Sri Lanka. He was appointed a special economic advisor to the President sometime in the early 1980s and he needed someone to work with him on the project to help him with the research for it. He picked me, and so I ended up seeing him quite regularly for that project, several times a week.
Do you think the fear of a change in government will work against the opposition?
TJS: I don’t think people should be frightened, it’s a reality of the future of politics. The realities of today are too complex to be represented by a one or two party state. Coalition governments are a possibility, that’s the way the UK’s gone.
AYG: People need to delink the PAP from the civil service: the civil service will remain no matter which party is in power. The teachers won’t stop teaching the children, the nurses won’t stop running hospitals, the fire fighters will still fight fire.
In reality, and I’m sure Jee Say can tell you, it’s actually the perm sec who runs the ministry. So whichever government is in power, the civil service is supposed to be apolitical and make sure the country continues to run by cooperating with the government of the day.
You know MM says that Ministerial pay is the reason why the PAP has managed to field good candidates in the last few elections, but this one we’ve proven him wrong.
All these Cambridge and Oxford people who don’t need to be paid millions to contest. A few nights ago Chiam See Tong said “politics is in my blood”! Now that’s pure passion, that’s something money can’t buy.
How do you rate your chances?
JS: Quite good. Heavyweights have become lightweights now.
AYG: I’m in it to win.
(source)
TOC managed to sit down with Mr Tan Jee Say and Dr Ang Yong Guan for dinner on the same day they were announced as candidates of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). In an exclusive interview over Hainanese chicken chop at Mooi Chin at the Landmark Village Hotel, the latest additions to the SDP’s team speak to TOC about their friendship that’s spanned 40 years, the level of support they’ve seen since taking the plunge into politics, and some of the causes they’d fight for if they were in Parliament.
How long have you and Dr Ang known each other?
TJS: We’ve been close friends for 40 years, I was one year Yong Guan’s senior as the Managing Editor of the school newspaper in Raffles.
It was quite a distinguished publication: Walter Woon took over from Yong Guan, and the person who handed the paper over to me was Han Fook Kwang (Editor of the Straits Times). We bonded over rushing deadlines and getting stories to press, and eventually we got to know each other very well, even our families. That made it easier when I had to speak to Yong Guan’s family about him joining politics.
When did you start thinking about running for elections?
TJS: Well it all started with the paper I wrote and presented at the TOC forum. I was encouraged by the response to my paper, a lot of people wrote in to me, strangers, old friends, primary school classmates I haven’t known for a long time. Many of them asked me to fight for my ideas to be realized.
My wife was the one who encouraged me to write the paper in the first place, she said to write my ideas down as a book or a report. So I burnt the midnight oil and finally it came about. I called up Sze Hian and said I’m not sure if they’re going to publish my paper or not, and it was nearing the Budget. Yong Guan’s family was a bit more resistant.
AYG: It’s a sad thing, because if you join the PAP you won’t have these issues. I think that in itself reflects poorly on the state of the nation. If you have an interest in politics you have to go in, but in Singapore it’s so difficult. My wife, my children, my parents: all were dead set against it. Jee Say had to talk to them.
When they finally came around, they became very supportive and even came to the press conference today.
TJS: I know them very well.
So, why now?
AYG: Well If I don’t go in this round the next time I’ll be 61 years old. My running mate (Jee Say) might already be an MP the next time round, and I thought since Jee Say is someone I know so well and feel so comfortable with, why not.
I want to be part of that critical mass, that wave. If you noticed the scholars who started joining the opposition, it’s almost like a few waves. First Tony and Hazel, then Ben and Jimmy, so I thought, it’s now or never.
TJS: Well, after the forum I realized that it wouldn’t achieve my purpose to come out alone, I must organize a group to come out. To make an impact you need numbers. And you need to start thinking about an alternative government to implement the policies. To do that you need the numbers. I thought of starting a non-aligned national resource pool to distribute candidates to different parties but eventually decided to try something more direct.
The first person I approached was Yong Guan, who was reluctant but he eventually came around.
Eventually, Dr Wong Wee Nam introduced us to Dr Chee, who had heard about my paper and wanted to talk to me about the ideas inside. After meeting up I realized he was quite a good man, very passionate and the SDP was the only party which offered a comprehensive economic plan for Singapore.
You’ve held pretty senior positions in the civil service, what was the reaction like from members of the establishment when they found out you joined?
AYG: Well before we joined we met up with two retired MPs, one of whom was an ex teacher of ours. The teacher ex-MP didn’t know, but the other one knew and was very supportive, gave us encouragement.
Well I guess the question on everyone’s mind is: why the SDP?
TJS: The SDP’s the only party with a comprehensive economic policy, a dedicated and excited base, and excellent communications policy that’s passionate and committed.
The only thing that worried me before I got to know Dr Chee was the negative public image. But I asked around and I was surprised that even a senior PAP grassroots leader told me that Dr Chee has been demonized by the PAP and the media.
So I met him, and he’s a very nice man, he’s not the demon he’s made out to be. So the positives were there and the negatives were overplayed, the rest naturally fell into place.
I think they welcome us because we add some credibility to the party which has taken an undeserved beating from the public demonization. We hope we can bring the SDP to the next level.
How will the PAP react?
I don’t know. This morning I wrote them an email to PM, SM Goh, Tharman, George Yeo, Lim Hng Kiang telling them, “I wish I’d told you about my entry into politics earlier but I’ve been overtaken by events, but my decision does not detract from the strong sense of respect I have for you as friends and former colleagues. I still treasure our personal friendships and my actions during the campaign will reflect this.”
Dr Ang, you were a grassroots leader with the PAP for a very long time, why don’t you think you can change things from the inside?
AYG: In the intermediate levels you can still make a change, but at the policy level it’s very difficult.
For example the government policies are failing at a very systemic level: the low fertility rate is very disturbing. Although standards of living are higher, fertility rate is dropping. The stress levels in Singapore just aren’t conducive to starting families.
The funniest thing is I’ve seen many families where the couple goes to Australia for a few months and then conceive!
Spontaneity, creativity has been stifled. It’s a sense of helplessness in the citizenry that makes people very selfish and result orientated where the end point becomes more important than the process.
For example, a principle will tell a child to get her depression treated first before taking a major exam, and take some time off school. This is done purportedly in the interest of the child but from my interactions with them I realize that it’s because of concern over the school’s result. There’s a lot of cynicism.
I spent 15 years serving as a grassroots leader in Kembangan with George Yeo, no one can say I don’t know.
How do you sense the PAP is feeling right now?
TJS: There’s an uneasiness. I don’t know if its dissatisfaction, but they’re definitely very nervous. They know they’ve run out of ideas. For instance, Ong Ye Kung’s introduction as a candidate was very disappointing: he said he used to be against casinos but now he’s for it.
AYG: Which illustrates the saying the ends justify the means: that’s wrong. You bring in the jobs but what kind of jobs are they?
TJS: In my paper I recommended cutting class sizes by half by increasing the numbers of teachers. Doubling the numbers of teachers and doctors and nurses, we have 30,000 teachers now, if we doubled it up we’d be creating honorable jobs that will be helping our country advance and at the same time grooming our children of tomorrow.
You can create a lot of jobs in the health sector, PMET and creative industries. We need to set aside a significant portion of the budget to fund creative industry, young people in IT and the creative industries.
I mean, what are casino jobs? The government says there are 35,000 of them, but most of them are croupiers and dealers, and most of these go to foreigners. You prefer your children to be doctors and teachers or be croupiers and dealers?
Mr Tan, you nearly became a PAP MP in 1984, tell us about that.
TJS: Well in 1984 when I was working in Ministry I went through the whole selection process. I went right to the final session by LKY [Lee Kuan Yew] and Rajaratnam, I remember Raja grilled me very rigorously. You know, the last round is the full Cabinet, it’s not really exactly a tea session, it’s quite rigorous.
Awhile after that Goh Keng Swee called me at the office and asked me when I’m resigning to start my entry into politics. I was quite surprised because I hadn’t heard back from the party yet. Not long after I was told by my Minister then, Tony Tan, that they wanted me to establish my career first as I was too young.
I was 30 years old that year, two years younger than Lee Hsien Loong. That was his first round running.
I knew Goh Keng Swee because I worked with him for a special project where he was advising the President of Sri Lanka. He was appointed a special economic advisor to the President sometime in the early 1980s and he needed someone to work with him on the project to help him with the research for it. He picked me, and so I ended up seeing him quite regularly for that project, several times a week.
Do you think the fear of a change in government will work against the opposition?
TJS: I don’t think people should be frightened, it’s a reality of the future of politics. The realities of today are too complex to be represented by a one or two party state. Coalition governments are a possibility, that’s the way the UK’s gone.
AYG: People need to delink the PAP from the civil service: the civil service will remain no matter which party is in power. The teachers won’t stop teaching the children, the nurses won’t stop running hospitals, the fire fighters will still fight fire.
In reality, and I’m sure Jee Say can tell you, it’s actually the perm sec who runs the ministry. So whichever government is in power, the civil service is supposed to be apolitical and make sure the country continues to run by cooperating with the government of the day.
You know MM says that Ministerial pay is the reason why the PAP has managed to field good candidates in the last few elections, but this one we’ve proven him wrong.
All these Cambridge and Oxford people who don’t need to be paid millions to contest. A few nights ago Chiam See Tong said “politics is in my blood”! Now that’s pure passion, that’s something money can’t buy.
How do you rate your chances?
JS: Quite good. Heavyweights have become lightweights now.
AYG: I’m in it to win.
SDP: a fiery show
The stage was set, the players were ready and the atmosphere was electrifying. Reporters lined the sides of the stages, snapping shots and shooting videos. The core SDP supporters thronged near the stage while the public swarmed the field beside Commonwealth MRT Station, eager to hear from a party that has grown from strength to strength in the recent months. My team and I were among the thousands that swarmed the rally grounds and we were not disappointed.
The line-up of speakers for the night:
Ms. Teo Soh Lung - Lawyer, Former ISA detainee
Mr. John Tan – Social Psychologist, obtained his Masters from the University of Wisconsin
Mr. Sadasivam Veriyah – Former Teacher, served in the grassroots organizations of Ayer Rajah Constituency.
Mr. Mohd Isa Abdul Aziz – Former civil servant, current Business Development Manager for an Australian Oil and Gas company.
Mrs. Michelle Lee – Read Government and Economics at the London School of Economics, worked in the Monetary Authority of Singapore, currently an English and Literature teacher.
Mr. Alec Tok – Read Biology and Mathematics at NUS, obtained his Masters in Fine Arts at Yale University’s School of Drama. Owns his own theatre company.
Mr. James Gomez – Senior Academic at Monash University, Visiting Scholar at Keio University, founder of the NGO: Singaporeans for Democracy.
Mr. Jarrod Luo – Read Biomedical Science and Microbiology in the University of Queensland. Currently a young entrepreneur.
Mr. Tan Jee Say – Former Principal Private Secretary to then DPM, Goh Chok Tong. Currently an investment advisor, working in international banks.
Dr. Vincent Wijeysingha – Received his PhD from Sheffield University. Currently the Executive Director of the NGO: Transient Workers Count Too.
Dr. Ang Yong Guan – Served as a Psychiatrist with the Singapore Armed Forces for 17 years before retiring the rank of Colonel. He is currently in private practice.
The Influx of Foreign Labour
Among the major issues brought up was the influx of foreign labour, which the SDP proposed to tap on only if there is a real need. Mr. John Tan questioned whether there really was insufficient talent in Singapore and told the crowd that “Singaporeans have talent, don’t let anyone tell you otherwise!” Mr Mohd Isa likened the influx of foreigners to a betrayal of the older generation, which sacrificed much for a better future for future generations.
The Ruling Party’s Absolute Power
Other speakers questioned the almost absolute power which the PAP holds in parliament and over the nation. Mr. John Tan lamented that the PAP leaders had forgotten to be servants of the public, but rather, are now the masters. He added that when “times are good” the government laps up the credit, but when “times are bad”, the average Singaporean gets the blame for not working hard enough. Mr James Gomez also touched on the inequity of the PAP’s power. He quoted Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong as saying that ministers would serve two terms, and he agreed with SM Goh, urging that the PAP leaders who had been serving above and beyond the two terms should step down. Former Principal Private Secretary to SM Goh, Mr Tan Jee Say, noted that the PAP had claimed credit for the building-up of Singapore. “Gratitude is not servitude!” he responded. He added the ministers had already rewarded themselves in the form of bonuses and higher salaries. After which he thundered “You owe them nothing!” – to a deafening roar from the crowd.
Creativity Among the Speakers
Other candidates were even more creative in the speeches. Entrepreneur Jarrod Luo began his speech by telling the crowd to “vote for PAP”. He continued, saying that if citizens wanted to work all their lives, if they wanted to have no say over their families and country, if they wanted their retirement fund to only reach their children after they are dead, then by all means, vote for the PAP. Dr James Gomez, on the other hand, slammed Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan for his controversial comment on sending the elderly to Johor Bahru. Dr. Gomez stated that he was starting “Operation Johor Bahru” with the aim of sending the PAP there. Dr Gomez also voiced his belief in the passion of the citizens and a growing fear within the ruling party.
Recounting from Experience
Candidates like Ms Michelle Lee and Mr Alec Tok drew from their working experience in their speeches. Ms Lee urged against putting “all the eggs in one basket”, arguing instead that diversification was key in reducing risks. She also denounced the ruling party’s notion that the country would come to a standstill should the opposition be elected, calling it scare tactics. Ms Lee reassured voters that the civil service is such that the system would still run even if the opposition were to form the government. Mr Tok, as a man in the Arts scene, recounted the time when the Royston Tan gangster-themed flick, 15, first came out. He noted that the government wanted to heavily censor it, thus showing their ignorance of the true, prevailing issues in the film that reflected the young in Singaporean society. These issues, he said, still carry on today because of the ruling party’s ignorance.
Dr Ang Yong Guan drew from his experience as a psychiatrist, telling the crowd that he would be dealing with issues more intimate to the society. He regaled the delighted crowd in his speech in English mixed with dialect, connecting well with the people and drawing excited responses from those in the crowd. Dr Ang also lamented the “complacency at the top” of the PAP government, leading to a society that is “kiasu and kiasi”.
The Star of the Show
Perhaps the most popular candidate was Dr Vincent Wijeysingha, whose entrance was marked by a massive roar followed by the crowd chanting his name. He graciously wished the PAP the best of luck, and hoped that the best man or woman will win. He also assured the people that the SDP’s only aim and agenda was to help Singaporeans ask the hard questions in parliament, and to “step into a future with no one left behind”. “I have no other agenda than your agenda,” Dr. Wijeysingha told the euphoric crowd.
If this first SDP rally is any sign, the crowds would only swell further in the up-coming week. Such is the strength of SDP’s slate of candidates that impressed many people in the crowd tonight. It is clearly the SDP team’s message that the public is responding well to. As Dr Wijeysingha summed up for the folks in Commonwealth, “All Singaporeans deserve to be happy and fulfilled. We are not just economic digits!”
WP: The hammer wins people's hearts
Hammering their way into people’s hearts
– April 29, 2011
Christopher Pang
(source)
Workers' Party heavyweights: Chen Show Mao, Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim (left to right)
Last night, I attended the Workers’ Party rally at Hougang SMC. The three heavyweights, Chen Show Mao(CSM), Sylvia Lim(SL) and Low Thia Khiang(LTK), contesting in Aljunied GRC demonstrated their ability to engage the audience with the bread and butter issues. The ground sentiment, estimated to be forty to fifty thousand strong, responded loudest to the eloquence of CSM, the directness of SL and the witty analogies of LTK.
CSM started off with a brief introduction of himself in Malay and went on to pose critical questions such as “How many millions to pay a government minister is enough?”, “How many hundreds of thousands of foreign workers to bring in every year is enough?” Someone in the crowd responded immediately, “NOT EVERY YEAR! EVERYDAY!” That drew a laughter from the nearby crowd. He went on to address the real income of the bottom half of employed households not keeping up with the growth of our GDP.
He further brought into question the viability of pegging new HDB flats to income of eligible households, the workfare supplement being benchmark against the increasing cost of living and even raise the possibility of unemployment insurance. He ended his speech with a Wizard of Oz story. He talked about the scarecrow who wanted a brain, the tin man who wanted a heart and the timid lion who wanted courage. He advised everyone to vote with their head, and think for themselves and for their children; to vote with their hearts, and think about the Singaporeans who are having a hard time making a living in Singapore; to vote with courage, to do what is right even if it means facing changes.
LTK thanked his constituency for their support over the years and then described his agonizing decision to move out of his comfort zone to contest in a GRC to change the political landscape. He further elaborated his party’s vision of a first world parliament, beyond just robust debating in parliament. Opposition parties must be given critical mass of presence with full voting rights and mandates. He then addressed affordability issue of housing and the mortgage spanned over 25-30 years is the reason most people today and in the future will have to work to the day they step into their graves.
The loudest cheer came when he made a brilliant reply to the recent comments made about the Worker’s Party wanting to enter parliament is to be the co-driver and tussle for the steering wheel. LTK said,”Maybe we need to remind the minister that we are all inside the vehicle. If the vehicle has an accident, all of us could be injured or die. Bear in mind, we are in the vehicle, putting on safety belt and just hope the driver will bring you to your destination is not enough. A co-driver is essential, especially when the road gets tougher to navigate. The co-driver is there to slap the driver when he drives off course or when he falls asleep or he drives dangerously. But of course if the driver is friendly, drives responsibly, then just keep talking to him to keep him awake.” The loudest cheer came when he talked about slapping the incumbent. He went on to establish his party’s stand that in order for a good democratic system to work, checks and balances have to be present and voters have to give them the “driver license” to be the co-driver.
Sylvia Lim started a direct approach on PAP’s Manifesto and ripping it apart literally. She touched on the recent forum in NUS where a student living in Hougang posed this question of biased treatment in upgrading of HDB in opposition constituencies. She questioned the creditability of PAP’s claims to be first world parliament if opposition wards are being penalized to favour PAP’s supporters. Singapore belongs to each and everyone of us, not the PAP. She further questioned the improvement in democracy through NCMP, as NCMP only has limited voting powers. She stressed that in order for the first world parliament to be successful, we need more opposition members with voting rights in parliament and urged everyone on the ground to give their support by voting them in.
As a libertarian, it is heartening to hear these three speakers. It gave me hope that we might be able to witness a better democratic system towards a better parliament. First world or not, we can only wait and see. However I did sense the difference in opinions on the grounds based on the level of cheering on different issues. For housing, the older generation seems to be quieter than the younger generation. For costs of living, the cheers come from the older generation. How this will translate into a voting results is difficult to predict. It seems apparent that everyone has his/her agenda in voting. It is definitely the same for every MP going into parliament, be it for the money, to serve the people or even fighting for rights of the minorities. The Workers’ Party has shown its hand by putting all its eggs into a basket to contest for Aljunied GRC. Does the Workers’ Party have the best hand now? It seems like it for now with these 3 aces and 2 deuces. We would only know on May 7 if the PAP has a straight flush.
Vincent Wijeysingha at SDP Rally
SDP candidate Vincent Wijeysingha said he has no other agenda other than to champion the concerns faced by Singaporeans. …
Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) candidate Dr Vincent Wijeysingha says he has "no other agenda", other than discussing hot-button issues concerning average Singaporeans.
Speaking at the party's rally which saw over 5,000 people gather at an open field located near Commonwealth MRT station on Thursday evening, Dr Wijeysingha said, "Let me assure you all and Singapore from this place. I have no other agenda than your agenda. Why? Because I am one of you."
Citing issues such as rising costs of living and housing prices, Dr Wijeysingha, 40, claimed that he is able to relate with the common man on their grievances.
“I also feel the pinch of rising prices. I also have to think twice about going to the doctor when I have the flu. I also haven’t been able to afford a flat and I also worry about my parents old days,” he said.
“I have spent my whole life working with the underprivileged and it is they who moved me and it is they who moved the members of my party.”
“And if we have any radical idea, if we have any dangerous agenda, it is this, that all Singaporeans deserved to be happy and fulfilled, not just some.”
His statements were a tongue-in-cheek reference to the “gay” video issue raised by Dr Vivian Balakrishnan.
On Monday, the People's Action Party (PAP) Holland-Bukit Timah GRC team led by Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, had questioned if the SDP and in particular Dr Wijeysingha, will pursue the "gay agenda" in the political arena.This comes after a YouTube video showed the SDP candidate in a forum on how to further promote the rights of gays and lesbians.
However, SDP chief Chee Soon Juan later responded that neither the party nor its candidates will pursue such an agenda and both parties have since put the matter to rest.
Addressing the issue for the first time in public, Dr Wijeysingha who is also an executive director of a social welfare organisation says that he bears no hard feelings and would also like to put the matter behind him.
"I would like to say something from my heart. Some of you may have read the headlines about me the last few days. I would like to say from this place that I have no anger to those who cause me to enter the headlines.
"Politics is a stressful activity, not for me. But having said that, politicians make mistakes, we are human beings, and we say the wrong things," he said.
"Dr Balakrishnan may have miscalculated, these things happen. I want to move on and I want to say from this place. I want to wish my PAP opponents the very best of luck and may the best men and women win."
Meanwhile, other issues raised at the rally included ministerial salaries, accountability for the "overblown" budget of the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) and the need for more public assistance.
Coming on as the second last speaker of the night, the loudest cheers were ultimately reserved for Dr Wijeysingha as the crowd chanted "we want Vincent".
When he asked why they attended the rally, the crowd replied, "To see you, Vincent", before they broke into laughter and cheers.
According to the SDP, local celebrities such as actor-director Lim Kay Siu, TV host Denise Keller and local playwright Alfian Sa'at were also spotted at the rally.
However, some people in the crowd were upset with the poor sound system which left many who were standing at the back trying to make out what the candidates were saying.
One of them was 48-year-old researcher James Raj, who complained that he could barely hear a thing from the back of the crowd.
"I was really looking forward to what Vincent was going to say but unfortunately I couldn't hear a thing. Perhaps they should add more speakers at the back of the field," he said.
Over 15000 at WP Rally
(source)
Over 15,000 people who turned up at the Workers' Party (WP) rally on Thursday night went home impressed after listening to Chen Show Mao's maiden speech.
Chen -- who is contesting in Aljunied group representation constituency (GRC) with WP chief Low Thia Khiang, party chairman Sylvia Lim, Pritam Singh and Faisal Abdul Manap -- received one of the loudest cheers from the teeming mass of people gathered at a field along Hougang Central when he was introduced on stage.
The WP "star catch" went on to give his self-introductions in Malay and Tamil, before delivering his speech in English and Mandarin.
Calling the crowd "brothers and sisters", he said that he was heeding the call from the nation's leaders to come home and serve the country and that "it is good to be back to home."
During the course of his English speech, he touched on how wages were not increasing as fast as the country's GDP growth, highlighting that most of the growth went to corporate profits and wage income for top earners.
While speaking in Mandarin, Chen asked voters to think about their vote, before asking them to think about how many more "five years" they have left in their lives to choose their government.
WP secretary-general Low, who has been Hougang's MP for the past 20 years, also got the crowd cheering when he referred to Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam calling the WP "a co-driver", whom Low felt is essential especially when "the road is hard to navigate."
To everyone's delight, he said, "The co-driver is there to slap the driver when he drives off-course or when he falls asleep!"
After which he added, "But of course, if he drives responsibly, then just keep talking to him to keep him awake."
Yaw Shin Leong, who will be replacing Low in Hougang and will go against the People's Action Party's Desmond Choo, talked about "the Hougang spirit" among residents and asked why they were penalised for supporting the opposition.
He got the crowd cheering towards the end of his speech when he asked them, "Will you support us?"
Hougang resident Marx Seet, an auditor, was one of the many thousands who responded, "Die die support you!"
People Yahoo! Singapore spoke to felt that it was a good start to WP's campaign to win votes, especially with their 'A' team facing a tough battle ahead in Aljunied GRC.
"It's the first time I've seen Singaporeans so passionate about something like this. But I do hope that crowds will translate into votes for them," said Kelvin Tey, 28.
Others felt that WP could do better for its rallies.
Said Deryck Chan, 25, "Some of the speakers could have done more to stir the crowds' emotions."
Second-time voter Juliana Yong added, "I'm here because I want to make an informed decision and get a clearer picture of who I want to vote for when I go to the polls."
For Ms M. Ng, 36, she was at the rally for a special reason.
"I came specially to hear his speech, I didn't even eat my dinner to come for this rally," she said, before screaming "Chen Show Mao, I love you!" when he was introduced on stage.
Over 15,000 people who turned up at the Workers' Party (WP) rally on Thursday night went home impressed after listening to Chen Show Mao's maiden speech.
Chen -- who is contesting in Aljunied group representation constituency (GRC) with WP chief Low Thia Khiang, party chairman Sylvia Lim, Pritam Singh and Faisal Abdul Manap -- received one of the loudest cheers from the teeming mass of people gathered at a field along Hougang Central when he was introduced on stage.
The WP "star catch" went on to give his self-introductions in Malay and Tamil, before delivering his speech in English and Mandarin.
Calling the crowd "brothers and sisters", he said that he was heeding the call from the nation's leaders to come home and serve the country and that "it is good to be back to home."
During the course of his English speech, he touched on how wages were not increasing as fast as the country's GDP growth, highlighting that most of the growth went to corporate profits and wage income for top earners.
While speaking in Mandarin, Chen asked voters to think about their vote, before asking them to think about how many more "five years" they have left in their lives to choose their government.
WP secretary-general Low, who has been Hougang's MP for the past 20 years, also got the crowd cheering when he referred to Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam calling the WP "a co-driver", whom Low felt is essential especially when "the road is hard to navigate."
To everyone's delight, he said, "The co-driver is there to slap the driver when he drives off-course or when he falls asleep!"
After which he added, "But of course, if he drives responsibly, then just keep talking to him to keep him awake."
Yaw Shin Leong, who will be replacing Low in Hougang and will go against the People's Action Party's Desmond Choo, talked about "the Hougang spirit" among residents and asked why they were penalised for supporting the opposition.
He got the crowd cheering towards the end of his speech when he asked them, "Will you support us?"
Hougang resident Marx Seet, an auditor, was one of the many thousands who responded, "Die die support you!"
People Yahoo! Singapore spoke to felt that it was a good start to WP's campaign to win votes, especially with their 'A' team facing a tough battle ahead in Aljunied GRC.
Workers' Party supporters brought their toy hammer to the rally. (Yahoo!/Liyana Low)
"It's the first time I've seen Singaporeans so passionate about something like this. But I do hope that crowds will translate into votes for them," said Kelvin Tey, 28.
Others felt that WP could do better for its rallies.
Said Deryck Chan, 25, "Some of the speakers could have done more to stir the crowds' emotions."
Second-time voter Juliana Yong added, "I'm here because I want to make an informed decision and get a clearer picture of who I want to vote for when I go to the polls."
For Ms M. Ng, 36, she was at the rally for a special reason.
"I came specially to hear his speech, I didn't even eat my dinner to come for this rally," she said, before screaming "Chen Show Mao, I love you!" when he was introduced on stage.
Size of last night's rally crowds
(source)
If the outcome for this General Election was based purely on rally attendances, the Opposition would win hands down.
An estimated 2,500 people, many of whom were hardcore party supporters, turned up for the People's Action Party's (PAP) first rally for the 2011 General Election at the field beside Buangkok MRT station on Thursday evening.
That figure pales in comparison to the rallies for the Worker's Party in Hougang (estimated 20,000), in Geylang East for National Solidarity Party (estimated 5,000), in Clementi stadium for Reform Party (estimated 4,000) and near Commonwealth MRT for Singapore Democratic Party (estimated 10,000).
If the outcome for this General Election was based purely on rally attendances, the Opposition would win hands down.
An estimated 2,500 people, many of whom were hardcore party supporters, turned up for the People's Action Party's (PAP) first rally for the 2011 General Election at the field beside Buangkok MRT station on Thursday evening.
That figure pales in comparison to the rallies for the Worker's Party in Hougang (estimated 20,000), in Geylang East for National Solidarity Party (estimated 5,000), in Clementi stadium for Reform Party (estimated 4,000) and near Commonwealth MRT for Singapore Democratic Party (estimated 10,000).
Thursday, April 28, 2011
A young Singaporean's political awakening
A well-written, illuminating essay by a 20-year old Singaporean.
It all begins with political apathy
by Loh Peiying (source)
(extract)
Recently I saw an advertisement for a three-room flat near my place. It was going for over S$400,000. That scared me. The amount set off alarms in my head. I went to ask my father for more details. He told me he had bought our current five room flat in 1983 for S$123,000, but today’s market value for it is approximately $650,000. That’s just insane. I know life is not meant to be a bed of roses, I know I would have to work hard, but these prices seem insurmountable. Moreover, I believe the prices will continue to climb if nothing effective is done to solve the rising costs of living. Does that mean that to have my own place, I have to live an eternity of debt? What about kids? Do I even dare consider raising any?
What about others who are less fortunate than I am? What are they going to do?
I have some friends who aren’t as lucky as me. They did fairly well for their A Levels or their GPAs but it was not enough to make the cut for our local universities. I understand that the system is based on merit and that is fair and justified. What I cannot stomach is the number of foreign students studying in our local universities, on our money. What gives our government the confidence that these people will stay and ‘integrate’?
While I was doing a stint as a relief teacher, an elderly cleaning lady came up to me and complained that students were pouring paint into the sinks and clogging up the plumbing. She implored me in Chinese, “Please tell your students not to do this anymore. We lead a very hard life you know. Each month I only earn $500, it is tough enough already.”
What? $500? She is so much older than me and my salary then was more than twice hers. Her work is so much more taxing and how is $ 500 enough to survive?
There is this old lady near my block. She is always hunched, pushing a trolley and picking up cardboard boxes. Once I saw her fighting viciously with another old man for a cardboard box. Is this our so-called modern and First World society? I am sure she’s not the only one in Singapore living like this.
Why are there people like her living on the streets, while our ministers earn so much? What justifies this gulf of disparity and why aren’t they doing anything? This makes me so angry. How can we just stand by and watch – and not do anything?
Being paid so much, there should be accountability. Is there?
I have become disillusioned with the ruling elite in the ways that they trample on our rights as citizens and cut our vocal cords on politics. There is something very morally wrong with the way we are governed.
Read the complete essay here.
It all begins with political apathy
by Loh Peiying (source)
(extract)
Recently I saw an advertisement for a three-room flat near my place. It was going for over S$400,000. That scared me. The amount set off alarms in my head. I went to ask my father for more details. He told me he had bought our current five room flat in 1983 for S$123,000, but today’s market value for it is approximately $650,000. That’s just insane. I know life is not meant to be a bed of roses, I know I would have to work hard, but these prices seem insurmountable. Moreover, I believe the prices will continue to climb if nothing effective is done to solve the rising costs of living. Does that mean that to have my own place, I have to live an eternity of debt? What about kids? Do I even dare consider raising any?
What about others who are less fortunate than I am? What are they going to do?
I have some friends who aren’t as lucky as me. They did fairly well for their A Levels or their GPAs but it was not enough to make the cut for our local universities. I understand that the system is based on merit and that is fair and justified. What I cannot stomach is the number of foreign students studying in our local universities, on our money. What gives our government the confidence that these people will stay and ‘integrate’?
While I was doing a stint as a relief teacher, an elderly cleaning lady came up to me and complained that students were pouring paint into the sinks and clogging up the plumbing. She implored me in Chinese, “Please tell your students not to do this anymore. We lead a very hard life you know. Each month I only earn $500, it is tough enough already.”
What? $500? She is so much older than me and my salary then was more than twice hers. Her work is so much more taxing and how is $ 500 enough to survive?
There is this old lady near my block. She is always hunched, pushing a trolley and picking up cardboard boxes. Once I saw her fighting viciously with another old man for a cardboard box. Is this our so-called modern and First World society? I am sure she’s not the only one in Singapore living like this.
Why are there people like her living on the streets, while our ministers earn so much? What justifies this gulf of disparity and why aren’t they doing anything? This makes me so angry. How can we just stand by and watch – and not do anything?
Being paid so much, there should be accountability. Is there?
I have become disillusioned with the ruling elite in the ways that they trample on our rights as citizens and cut our vocal cords on politics. There is something very morally wrong with the way we are governed.
Read the complete essay here.
The much vaunted PAP cream is flawed
Steven Tan Peng Hoe, who was expected to run in the Tampines Group Representation Constituency, withdrew his candidacy at the 11th hour late on Tuesday night, citing "personal reasons".
Rumours on internet forums said his decision could be down to harrassment issues when he was working at the National Trade Union Congress (NTUC) umbrella union. Allegations have been made against him by former female colleagues while letters have also reportedly been sent to the Prime Minister's Office.
But the 37-year-old, who is married, told The Straits Times that he "absolutely refutes" the rumours.
"I did not have an ideal love story or love life, and I dated people. But my conscience is clear. I took a long time to decide who to spend the rest of my life with, but I'm very happy that I'm now married to her," said the unionist, who married his wife, Sarah, in late 2009.
Explaining his decision to withdraw his candidacy, he said, "There are so many pressing issues, so many debates to resolve. I don't want this campaign to be about me."
He also said the decision was made after consulting his wife, "who is fully behind" him.
Mrs Tan, 38, who is a volunteer, questioned the timing of the allegations and said they caught the couple off-guard.
"I don't know why they were made. But I know Steve, and am fully behind him. And I will support him in whatever decision that he makes," she said.
Speaking to Yahoo! Singapore, Tan said that he could not comment on whether he would still continue doing work under the PAP banner. However, he said he plans to continue with his work and daily life.
On Wednesday, PM Lee addressed the issue during a press conference and said the PAP "were unaware" of Tan's issue until the last minute but were prepared to make final-hour adjustments.
PM Lee said he did not want go into details about why he withdrew except that it was a "personal decision" by Tan which the PAP "accepted".
Steve Tan Peng Hoe (left) along with Foo Mee Har and Desmond Lee Ti-Seng when they were unveiled as part of PAP's …
PM Lee said the party and Mr Tan could have "pretended there was no problem and just carried on".
"But Steve Tan is honourable, we are (as well), and we decided that awkward as it is, we just had to go through with this and made the last-minute change and explain to people: I'm sorry, something has come up...we have had to make a change," said the PM.
Separately, Labour chief Lim Swee Say said Mr Tan was put up as a candidate "based on our knowledge of his track records over the last 10 years".
On Mr Tan's decision to drop out of the contest, he said: "I'm glad he took the decision before the GE. I suppose he came to the decision in the interest of the party, in the interest of the voters. I take consolation that we have responsible people who put the bigger voter interest ahead of personal interest."
When he was first introduced to the media, Tan said he was a grassroots volunteer at Tampines East and helped out at Meet-the-People Sessions, among other activities.
A business graduate of the Nanyang Technological University, he also helps to manage the community website, My Tampines.
He had said that he sees being an "ordinary guy" as a strength.
"When I'm doing my union work, this is one aspect I love: I hang out at the same places and do the same things as my workers... we eat roti prata at Jalan Kayu together," he said. "It will make it easier for me to relate to voters," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)