Blog Archive

Friday, 21 August 2015

Tin Pei Ling, The Star Performer of MPs From 2011 General Election

Watch this video of Ms Tin Pei Ling, who was introduced as the PAP Macpherson SMC candidate.Get breaking news, live updates, and exclusive content, on the go, please click:
Posted by People's Action Party on Friday, August 21, 2015

Tin Pei Ling has earned the the "Start Performer" of backbenchers from 2011 GE.
It was a total transformation that could not go unnoticed even by her detractors. From a "cannot be taken seriously" party loving young girl to a "wholeheartedly dedicated" young MP, she left most Singaporeans drop jaw.
The comparison of her and and competitor Nicole Seah then left her rather devastated. Nicole came in as what she is now, a wholeheartedly dedicated young lady full or aspiration to better the lives of folks in MacPherson.
Nicole decided a different path midway while Pei Ling persevered on, changing herself and changing others along the way.
Something else has also made her stood out among others, and in particular a rather similar comparison.
Workers Party MP Lee Li Lian announced that she was expecting a baby long before Pei Ling did. Li Lian was almost out of public eye thereafter, but of course she continues her constituency works at her ward. She attended to her tea party where residents will come to her at the void deck, for casual chats or some issues.
When Pei Ling was expecting, she continued making her rounds, tracking walkways and climbing staircases, knocking door to door visiting residents. Residents see her frequently at markets and hawker centres. Residents can also look her up anytime when there is a need.
This is priceless experience and special relationships that has brought Pei Ling and her residents together in MacPherson. She shared the time when the tummy grows bigger each day with her residents. Residents in turn has recognized that the baby inside is already a part of their MacPherson.
The difference between the two new mothers that made Pei Ling so outstanding is, Pei Lings baby was a regular visitor to every household in her constituency, but Li Lian's baby never was and is a part of Punggol East residents.
Comparably Pei Ling is more than just the MP for MacPherson, she is a member of every household and a daughter of all living there
Lastly and importantly, Pei Ling has a team who knows the value of visuals be they photos or videos, and make them work for her.
This video tells an endearing story of Tin Pei Ling.

Wednesday, 19 August 2015

3rd Rebuttal of Kirsten Han's blog

Third rebuttal to Ms Kirsten Han....
Is PAP not separated from the State? Another question is, is the PAP and the State not separable?
This is what Ms Han has to say in her article....
<< So much of Singapore’s history as it is taught in schools, exhibited in museums and displayed at National Day events is about what the PAP did to build up an independent nation. It’s difficult now to imagine a Singapore without the PAP.>>
Interesting way of putting it isn't it?
Singapore's history taught in school is not too remote that many Singaporeans still living cannot testify to. Parents, grandparents who lived through the years of Singapore's early stages and witness the progress it has made are still around to refute if history taught in schools are not what they have personally experienced.
Exhibits, artifacts and replay of events are our collective life experience. These give meaning to what bonds us together spiritually (not in the religious sense). We are woven together by shared experience of Singapore in the making, and its continued making.
These also give meaning to a shared experience of a struggle where people locked hands with PAP to confront the odds and together they build the State.
That is why, if Ms Han wishes to know why the PAP is still the inalienable leader. People looked to the PAP for answers, and the PAP has been in the lead all these years. Even if you don't like the idea, you cannot deny the fact.
Let me put it bluntly....even it is not so glamorous.
Do people go to WP to ask them to solve MRT breakdown? Shouldn't they if they know that the WP has found the way to solve that? If you tell me it is not the opposition's job to solve government problem, then you are telling me that they have doomed themselves to forever playing opposing role. Where is that show of ability that they can do things better than PAP?
The PAP has that moral responsibility to put those difficulties right. The PAP has to take that lead to solve problems. At the end of the day, if there is anything not quite right, it is still the PAP that must attend to and solve them.
This has been it and still will be. The People knows no one else can.
OK let me take you back to earth. The People's need for the PAP has not diminished much as those in the opposition had wished it did. PAP's bond with the People will only diminish if it does not reposition itself according to relevance of conditions and environment. Even the oppositions must continue to reposition themselves to stay relevant or find themselves diminishing in influence. There will always be shifting of the whole.
As of now, anyone who wish to dilute that connection of State and PAP that exist in the non-tangible, they just have to first, work hard on getting things right, and wait patiently.

2nd Rebuttal of Kirsten Han's blog

Continuing from the previous article, Ms Han's main thrust of her article is about separating the State from PAP.
Her reasons for this is the PAP has framed itself as a perpetual thus making the separation difficult.
She reinforced this belief by asserting that the PAP by giving out GST vouchers and Estate Upgrading done for citizens that are meant to make citizens grateful to the party. Her proof is : constituencies under oppositions were shunted to the back of the queue.
Her perspective clearly is not what she tried to present herself in the article..."fair". Her's is a fixated view of "bad government, good oppositions". All good done by government is suspicious with ulterior motives, and oppositions suffer as a result of government doing good.
GST vouchers are given out to all citizens regardless whether you vote the PAP or oppositions.
As with Estate Upgrading, let us take her so call proof of putting opposition constituencies being shunted to the back. Did she follow up with as to why she thinks this should not be? No she did not. I would rather believe she cannot.
Writers like Kirsten Han often creates impressions, misleading impressions that government has no answers to a question by repeating the same question over and over, and over at different places. The refusal to accept answers does not equal to not having answers, and the refusal to truth does not means truth does not exist.
Firstly it is not true that only opposition constituencies are being shunted to the back of the queue. Most PAP constituencies do not get to enjoy priorities to these programmes as well. If there were 5 opposition constituencies that did not get Estate Upgrading, 50 more PAP constituencies were also left out due to limited time and resources.
For fair comparison by putting those 50 PAP constituencies who did not get upgrading together with the 5 from opposition who also did not get upgrading, and if there is a little extra resources plus some new provisions that can be given away to one or two of these, who should these go to?
To the opposition constituencies by virtue that most people there dislike what the government is doing for them as shown by way of votes or to PAP constituencies?
It is tough, extremely difficult decisions to make. They are all citizens of Singapore, and as Ms Hans said, these are also tax payers' money. One cannot show unfair preferences neither can one show unfair sympathy.
Let's put it to the polls during elections. You choose.
But of course in recent times, the upgrading issue is no longer a thorn in the flesh for both PAP and oppositions. More resources have been allocated and opposition constituencies do see their queue numbers arrived.
Ms Han is a little backdated with this, but she did try very hard to present the sad sad story that never is and never shall be.

Rebuttal to Kirsten Han's blog

Kirsten Han joining GE talks, but a bit out of tune.
This is her starter :
<<The upcoming general election is not about electing opposition voices into Parliament. Or so the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) would like you to believe. No, the upcoming general election is actually about electing the next generation of PAP leaders to govern the country.
That this completely misrepresents the point of parliamentary elections should be clear. But what is more troubling for Singapore is the way in which the PAP is treated as a fixed point in the country’s political landscape, a certainty that voters are expected to facilitate (if they know what’s good for them).>>
By her disagreement with what PAP says, we understand her that this coming election is really about electing opposition voices into Parliament.
She is more pointed in another paragraph way below. So our understanding of her assertion that GE is about electing opposition into Parliament is not very far from the truth. This is what she said subsequently :
<<This might be acceptable for some time, as it appears to have been to the electorate for over 50 years. But the power imbalance leaves us all in a vulnerable position, where we just have to cross our fingers and hope that those in power continue to make good decisions and share the values that ordinary people would like to see in our society.>>
Never in the history of democracy is General Elections about electing oppositions into Parliament. By the way the reason why there is such a thing call "Opposition" is because of "Failure".
General Elections will always be about forming government. You go to the polls because of the expiry date of the government. These are the absolute defines of General Elections. All else are interpretations thereof.
So why is having "Oppositions" a result of failure? The basic failure occurs when contesting parties fail to win over all citizens to its side by means of votes.
In reality getting all people to agree in all things is never a possibility. Not even two persons can agree on all things. Where in democratic competition, political parties must foremost endeavour to satisfy all people, not some people. Hence all political parties must put forth itself the capacity and ability to run a government, and not cutting itself to a smaller role of catering to special interest.
This is idealistic thinking, as idealistic as in the proposition that all parliaments must have opposition parties.
There is a place for opposition parties to cut themselves small, representing special interest, not because it is the absolute political model, but the system is open enough to accommodate, to be inclusive even if this is not the ideal nor the best democratic competition we can have.

Tuesday, 18 August 2015

Question About Grassroots Organizations' Accounts

It is with regrets that I had paid so little attention to accounting matters during my days of involving in Grassroots Organizations. Primarily I hate numbers. I prefer people, residents than mind boggling numbers.
But still I was able to put a stop to a project that could not give me a reasonable assurance of the project's self-sustainability, despite a majority support from the committee. Without elaborating, I have incurred a lot of wrath and even hate. The projects has a price tag beyond 300K and architect's sketches were produce for discussion.
Now that parliament is discussing about PA and GRO accounting procedures, it brought back some memories.
In those committees that I have sat in, there is a post of Treasurer, and Asst Treasurer, and that of an Auditor. I must say the Auditor was always questioning the Treasurer, and that too fed to my laziness about paying attention to the boring accounts reporting at every meeting.
Let me just put it this way, there is no absolute altruism in GRO involvement. There is bound to be personal interest somehow, where some are in hoping to form or be in "old boys club" while others thinks this kind of networking is cheaper than country clubs.
For me, I loved to play and have been playing games all my life. Chide me for treating community service as a game if you may, but you'll be a fool to think that a game cannot be serious, passionate, and even sacrificial. If I change the word from game to sports, it may sound more palatable to you.
Though we all have our unique interest in participating in Grassroots activities, not one can gain or profit directly from these organizations unless you blatantly cheats without others knowing. Every member is a check, and have their own individual reputation and dignity to protect. The system has not gap for pilfering.
Moving with times, I believe it is time to change. I do not believe there is a question of integrity, but the problem or issue lies with culture. The corporate culture of Grassroots Organizations needs to keep abreast with time and expectation.
Take PA accounting vs GRO accounting for example. My understanding may be vague, or even inaccurate. But it looks to me like this.....
Peoples' Association's consolidated account is one of the many handbags (no intention to be sexist) that links with the government vault. Money going into and coming out of these handbags are restricted by rules and subject to public accountability.
But within that handbag are compartments, even different wallets to manage internal use of money. A friend particularly during Lunar New Year uses different wallets inside her handbag to ensure that she will give the right amount of "hong bao" to differentiate the closeness of relations. Her adult son once gave a $2000/- "hong bao" which was intended for a client's kid to someone else.
GROs are special class of identities where, with the assistance from PA runs on grants and contributions from running activities and events. Most of the time revenues generated from community activities and events are insufficient and has to be compensated with grants to cover the expenses.
While having even to subject internal movements of "own-money" to external audit and scrutiny will increase spending by a lot, I think the money is going to be well spent even just to allay suspicion.
This will most probably increase workloads of accounting firms which may already be facing manpower crunch, but when there is no way out, then we probably has to admit more foreigners to help do the job so that transparency and accountability can be held high.

Monday, 17 August 2015

Why Does The Original Team At Workers Party Chose To Remain In Aljunied GRC

If ever there is any reason closer to the truth as to why the Workers Party team in Aljunied GRC and Punggol East remains intact is not exactly that they took PAP seriously as Goh Chok Tong has said. The WP has always taken PAP seriously, not just Aljunied GRC this time round. GCT is not exactly wrong either.
You would have noticed I had never included Hougang in the equation all along, and I guessed this is fully understood by all.
To add to that, it would become controversial if Low Thia Khiang suddenly decides to take back Hougang from Png Eng Huat. What will that signals? No it is suicide to do that.
Back to Aljunied and Punggol, and these are one unofficially.
First reason closer to the truth for the Aljunied Punggol WP team to remain intact is the two-heads factor. Sylvia Lim & Low Thia Khiang. Remember Sylvia Lim did not win any elections until Low abandoned his Hougang seat and brought Slyvia Lim up to be full MP in 2011. Since then, Sylvia Lim becomes the de facto boss and public face of the WP. She has created much opportunities for media coverage as also Chairman of AHPETC.
From cleaning of ceilings, penalizing exorbitantly of stall holders, operating fairs without permits to the inability of keeping financial records proper and to date.
We are not sure if there is any power tussle issues between the two heads of Singapore's leading opposition party, so we cannot rule that out totally, and we have to factor in this to figure out what is happening.
First it was Low who alone and unanimously declared he will remain without mentioning the others. It would be fine if the rest can wait till a better time nearer to nomination or even at nomination. It is common and normal to keep one's card close to the chest.
Then not long after, Sylvia Lim made the announcement that sounded more official than that of Low Thia Khiang. It makes people puzzled.
Let's consider if Low leads a team in Aljunied and Sylvia Lim leads another in any other GRC. What happens thereafter?
If both wins, the status of Sylvia Lim will be further elevated as against Low, and no longer needs to bear the stigma of it was Low's coat tail that parachuted her into parliament. This adds to further frictions when it comes to differences in ideas and decision making.
If Low wins and Sylvia Lim crashed out and lost with Low keeping Aljunied, Low will be able to stabilize the internal dynamics at play within the party. Don't forget that throughout the last parliament term, several of Low's original team left the Workers Party on not so amicable circumstances.
Thereafter with Sylvia Lim no longer an elected MP, Low can reorganized the town council and set the directions without having to consider Sylvia Lim's consent.
Comparing the chances of winning between Aljunied and another GRC, the chances of a win for Aljunied is a possibility and an almost firm lost for any other GRC. Let me explain later.
Therefore, using Sylvia LIm's favourite words this season, on assessment it is prudent for her and her followers to stick with Low Thia Khiang in Aljunied. Considering the pros and cons, even if there is a total crash out for the WP, the positions between the two heads of WP will have little change.
Now why is there an almost firm lost for the WP should Slyvia Lim goes to another GRC? This is also one of Sylvia Lim's detailed assessment.
All of Singapore knows that the Aljunied GRC is having "challenges", a word used by Sylvia Lim to describe their problems with AHPETC's financial management. Whether they are good at the end of the day or they will come out stink, no other GRC would want such issues happen inside their courtyard. This is not about First World Parliament anymore.
Given a sure lose wherever Sylvia Lim goes, she has to decide to cuddle with Low in Aljunied to strengthen their chances. Unfortunately looking at the circumstances, she may be the nemesis for Workers Party this time round.

Sunday, 16 August 2015

National solidarity Party Leader's Misconception About Roles & Responsibilities of a Member of Parliament

Hazel Poa says the primary job of Member of Parliament is to make laws, not managing town. She has put a definition to the role of an MP while my friend Patrick Liew has put 4Cs to the qualities of an MP. Commitment, Character, Competence, Compassion.
What Ms Poa said was partly right, but only a very very small part of it. The privileges that comes with being a Member of Parliament is indeed making laws among others.
The fundamental duties and responsibilities of an MP lies with serving the constituents that voted you into the parliament. Singapore is too small to have municipal governments that has to even run its own economy, making sure its constituents gets their daily meal on the table.
Let me put the argument this way to allay those who tells me that Parliament is the place to make laws and MPs do the making. Do we not see MPs not making laws in parliament? You can have your mouth shut throughout the whole Parliament term and no one can sack you for that. Is that enough to explain why making laws is not fundamental duty of an MP?
If Ms Poa being the de facto leader of a leading opposition party can have such shallow understanding of the role and responsibilities of an MP, how can we put all the 4Cs onto our talent search. It is extremely difficult for the PAP and it is even more difficult for opposition parties.
Much of the MPs job are practically learned on-the-job. Even in the most basic function of that role, petition writing, MPs differ in not just styles, but level of skills that involves being attentive, inquisitive, and analytic before a convincing letter can be written. Additional knowledge and information would power it further, and MPs have got to go out and acquire these to make them better MPs.
Again Ms Pao is wrong in assuming that managing town councils is really to get down to sweep corridors. Managing towns is the primary level of managing country. If municipal matter is not your interest, Then I really do not see you having an interest in facilities and infrastructures. If you don't understand why a lift needs to be maintained at regular intervals, then I do not see how you can understand the complex operations of a MRT system, let alone the entire transport road map of Singapore.
Only when you learn to share joys and pains of the residents, what makes them happy and what makes them sad, then you earn your rights to that privilege of going into parliament and argue your heart out for your residents, and for all Singaporeans, to ad to their joy and happiness and reduce those pains and sadness.
Yes we do have oppositions in Singapore's parliament, but sadly the law making responsibilities had thus far largely undertaken by the PAP MPs. Parliament was somewhat treated as an information vault where they ask for information to bolster their opposition agenda instead of national affairs.
Are we better off today with more oppositions in Parliament? My honest estimate is NO. It has stifled much of progress as a nation. Is checks and balances necessary? YES. Who qualifies to do the checking?

Coming back to the picture uploaded by Mr Wong Kan Seng. I put a caption to that :
"The smiles on the face and the looks in the eyes says it all. You are much loved by these whose parents were just like them, only kids when you began as their Member of Parliament.
You have never let time flies without touching the hearts of generation of your constituents."
The mark of a good MP is written on the face of his/her residents, and on the surroundings of his constituency.

Saturday, 15 August 2015

Teo Chee Hian Wants To Take Back Aljunied GRC

If Sylvia Lim from Workers Party can do a smokescreen, so can Teo Chee Hian from the PAP.
No, I'm just kidding. The PAP has yet to learn how to create fogginess, and even if they do the WP has by now perfected that many miles ahead.
What DPM Teo just said is like throwing a glass of clear water. You don't get smoke by throwing clear water can you? It is no secret that the PAP intends to take back Aljunied GRC and Punggol East and that is not impossible.
The PAP owes a duty to those who voted them to win back Aljunied GRC and Punggol East. The PAP who had served there had accumulated on behalf of residents monies in the sinking fund as well as operational surpluses.
It is still foggy as to the financial status of the town council ever since it was handed over to the Workers Party. A bank account consisting of monies belonging to residents of the constituencies accounting for sinking fund and operational surpluses are reportedly not accounted for according to statutory requirements.
I do not think that by now we should be talking about requiring the Workers Party to come clean on its accounts and make them up to date for public scrutiny.
I believe that every political party must have its town council accounts readily available for public scrutiny by Election Day. Election Day is the dividing line as to whether the town council remains with the incumbent or it will be taken over by another party.
A town council's performance that includes its financial status are a significant part of what voters look for in deciding who to vote for in the election.
By not having its accounts ready for public scrutiny is somewhat akin to hijacking the democratic process of the General Election. You leave voters "No Choice" to vote one party in order to have it finish its unfinished jobs, or to vote one party out to allow another party to pick up the pieces. Either way, voters have no "willing choice".
At least if the accounts are available for public scrutiny, and it is in the deficit, it allows voters to make a willing and intelligent choice of voting one party even if it runs the town council into deficit. This is democracy.
I know some people will ask me what about Lehman Brothers? The brothers are assuredly resting peacefully, and if you are referring to Teo Ho Pin's losses in investable funds, then listen.
I am no fan of Teo Ho Pin's investment strategy nor decisions. But that won't make me in agreement with those who argues that losses in investable funds are the same as sinking funds and operational funds not properly accounted for..
I would have accord the Workers Party same response and treatment if it is only about investable funds in question. I may even side with it if its investment strategy is superior to that of Teo Ho Ping.
But it is not the same with operational funds. These monies are for paying contractors so that they can pay their workers salaries, and pay for materials they use.
Sinking funds are savings put aside for major repairs and replacements, and they are untouchable until called for.
The losses made by Teo Ho Pin's town council are all accounted for, every dollar. But to date, even the Chief Justice is asking if there is a possibility of insolvency pointing to AHPETC's financial accounts.
So I think for now, the demand by Aljunied GRC and Punggol voters is for the Workers Party to quickly present its latest up to date financial statements so that a fair democratic process can take place without running questionable..

Friday, 14 August 2015

The Lui Tuck Yew Effect On Coming General Elections

Much of our discussions these two days focused on Lui Tuck Yew's decision not to participate in the coming GE.
His decision announced publicly had drawn much support and understanding from people who once jeered him. People realized they have wronged him and feelings of remorse did dig deep into Singaporeans' conscience. How can you fault such a man as Lui Tuck Yew?
More heart melting happened when they discovered that he was once living in a two-room rented flat.
Not discussed at all is his role as MP and Grassroots Advisor.
You can say "tuck you" to him on screen and he is tough enough to take it lightly, but when unkind words come off face to face during community visits in the presence of public, it is bitterly harder to swallow but you just have to swallow.
Thanks to trolls and Opposition MPs who had preferred to remain silent to the supporters, choosing to enjoy fruits dropping from overhanging branches across the wall.
It is not the government's job to make things easy for oppositions, therefore why is it the oppositions' job to shield an innocent minister from abuse? Then please don't shed crocodile tears.
The pressure on the man is not simply his ability to hold up the Transport Ministry, he is better than that. But because he also has to win elections that makes it all the more difficult given the mounting odds. He will forever be a subject of abuse performing the MP role.
What's the point? Collective responsibility among cabinet colleagues don't bring together collective votes. Each has to earn his/her own, non transferable.
Singaporeans were willing to sacrifice George Yeo, a man gifted with global vision for some dubious promises of First World Parliament that has yet to be figured out what that really mean?
Losing Lui Tuck Yew, a down to earth, serious and dedicated man to join the chorus of unsound protests of mechanical wear and tear.
When will we wise up? Can we safely call ourselves a politically matured society when we cannot tell the difference between needs and wants?

Thursday, 13 August 2015

TOC Picking On Chee Hong Tat

This was the title The Online Citizen site used for an article making reference to PAP candidate Chee Hong Tat.
<“Stupid” to advocate the learning of dialects: PAP’s new candidate once said>
A previous article of the same, I took issue with the crafting of this title that later discovered was my oversight and mistake. I was corrected by mod and I took down the post. A mistake should not become a wrong.
However the key argument of that article remains "What impression does TOC wants Singaporeans to know about the new PAP candidate? That he is against dialects? TOC's article does take a position of supporting the learning of dialects as propagated by rehashing an observation made by Dr Ng Bee Chin at a symposium.
This is what Dr Ng said :
“Although Singaporeans are still multilingual, 40 years ago, we were even more multilingual. Young children are not speaking some of these languages at all any more.
“All it takes is one generation for a language to die.”
For that, Chee who was then private secretary of MM Lee Kuan Yew replied in ST Forum page explaining the government's position pertaining to dialects and why it discouraged the use of dialects.
Perhaps we can discuss if there is any merits to promote the use of dialects separately, but it is well known that Lee Kuan Yew had strong convictions that Singaporeans can learn and perform optimally without dialect distractions. The government continues to be guided by Lee's conviction to this day.
Rehashing a reply to the Forum page from an employee who takes instructions from his boss and frame it as if it is his won volition is mudslinging. Playing gutter politics to the maximum.
This is why I asked, is it really TOC's belief that dialect is good for Singapore, or they are using it to run down a candidate for political gain?
Chee would never have known that TOC will jab him below the belt with this, but by stroke of luck Chee chose to address the media in the Hokkien dialect. With that, Chee not only drew the distinction between discouraging the learning of dialects and that of using dialects in day to day situations.
A statement of sorts, Chee is by no means one that goes against the use of dialects, if this is what TOC hopes to frame.
Then he must be inconsistent they may say.
Oh please, give the guy a break. He was only an employee taking orders like everyone else.

Low Thia Khiang Creating Haze To A Clean Path

Why did LKY thinks highly of LTK? No praise was reserved for anyone else. This guy got brain.
He turns crisis into opportunity by the click of his fingers. Whether Lui Tuck Yew's decision not to contest in the coming GE was anything close to what Low Thia Khiang thinks, Low's questions raise doubts upon his political opponents and turned the table around somewhat.
Like it or not? True or false, Lui's resignation did in fact hit the button that releases immense amount of pressure off voters who were highly critical of our transport system.
Instead, enormous amount of sympathy had rallied around Lui, as if stricken by a lightning of truth that It was not his doing that the system fails. They began to realized, of which they previously refused to acknowledge how much Lui had done to improve the flow of daily commuters in Singapore.
The release of an article revealing Lui who once only lived in a two-room rented flat completely crushed accusations about him being a million-dollar minister.
This is how fragile political information can be, and this is how unpredictable a sure win platform for the oppositions can suddenly turn against them. But look.....
Much like a clip out of Discovery Channel, a trapped fox clevered itself out of danger.
When the fogginess is gone, clarity of path emerges. This is no good for those who had enjoyed the presence of haze because it brings profits. How do you prevent fogginess from going away in a political situation? Create it, and this is about political life and death.
Was just curious about the interview with Low. Did not the question arise amongst the many reporters to ask if Low Thia Khiang had held such a high regard of Lui and his ability to manage the Transport Ministry, did it not occur to Low to defend Lui when breakdowns of trains occur in the course of the last parliament?

Tuesday, 11 August 2015

The PAP May Just Lose All Seats In Coming Elections

General Elections (2015) frenzies shall begin.
The oppositions has seemingly settled amongst themselves for a No-3 Corner-Fight with the PAP.
Personally I welcome the news. This is one democratic function that the oppositions did not perform well in the past, forgoing fights that deny the incumbent's rights to a dignified win.
First Declaration : No More Parachute!
The other reason I am happy is they have unanimously undo Chiam See Tong's By-election effect, "Keep the PAP government but bring in oppositions".
Second Declaration : No More By-Election-Effect
What does this mean to ordinary Singapore Citizens, you and me?
We heard this during the last election that we need more opposition in parliament to question and to check on the PAP government. This call to have more oppositions no longer, I say this again "No Longer" is valid.
If Singaporeans vote the PAP, this government remains. If Singaporeans don't vote the PAP this government will go. Going into what after would be speculative of that outcome, but it is not that difficult to imagine what follows.
The PAP was right and true to declare during its 60th anniversary that this coming election will be about government, paraphrase to mean not about more oppositions anymore.
Never before was that single vote in your hand been so heavy when the PAP looks set to win every elections easily in the past.
Every vote is secret, every vote is sacred. No one knows who those people at adjacent booths are voting for, but once that "X" is done, you cannot revert it.
Now, this coming GE the true meaning of General Elections has once again come alive. It is all about who voters want to run Singapore. Although at every election the PAP government is never guaranteed a return to govern, but never before has this been so real.
We do have some time now to prepare our minds with this mammoth responsibility, to reflect for ourselves, weigh the pros and cons, pray if you will, who we will vote. Let your heart and mind have a chance to make the decision and not just let what the loud hurrays lead you.
Oppositions Cry : Vote Them Out!
and this is highly possible.