At a recent press conference, Mr Lee Kuan Yew was asked for his views if Aljunied GRC were to fall to the opposition. “Well, it’s their choice”, Mr Lee said. “And I’d say they have five years to live and repent”.

A quick search on the word ‘repent’ yielded these definitions:

1) ‘feel or express sincere regret or remorse about one’s wrongdoing or sin’;

2) [with object] view or think of (an action or omission) with deep regret or remorse;

3) (repent oneself) archaic feel regret or penitence about.

This sounds harsh and arrogant for any party wishing to win the votes of the people. This same attitude may be seen throughout this entire GE, not only from MM Lee himself but also from Minister Lim Boon Heng, who was quoted as saying that the thankless job of being an MP is much akin to Jesus healing 10 lepers, with only 1 coming back to thank him.

Being a civil servant myself, I can understand when he says being in the civil service is thankless.

However, a civil servant such as myself will also fall into the median wage group of $2500 a month. I am sure this is not comparable to the seven figure annual remuneration he and 21 other ministers earn for their “thankless” job.

In the same interview, when asked how he felt with regards to one-third of the population who chose to vote for the opposition, Mr Lee said: ” Well, it is a footloose generation that hasn’t experienced the past and believes that Singapore is now an aeroplane that is flying safely and can go on autopilot and anyone can take over”.

I believe he was referring to Generation Y Singaporeans, those who were born in the mid 1970’s to early 2000’s.

What exactly does he mean by ‘footloose’? The term refers to anyone who has no commitments and responsibilities and is free to go wherever and whenever they wish. How does wishing for an alternative party translate to us being footloose?

At the rallies I have been attending, a quick survey of the rally crowds shows a predominance of young adults to middle-aged citizens, all of whom were fervently cheering and jeering (depending on the context).

If we were really footloose, would we be standing arm-in-arm, fighting for our rights and our future? If we were really footloose, would we even bother with this GE? If we were really footloose, would we even be here?

The sad truth is, these ministers are so detached from the hard truths on the ground they believe that everything they say is indeed true. That everything is hunky-dory and smooth sailing. How many ministers do we see jostling for a standing space on public transport, balloting for a HDB flat, losing their jobs to foreigners? I do not believe that foreigners are eligible to apply for a job as a member of parliament.

A footloose generation indeed. I say bring it on and let’s really see some fun and games.

Debbie Lim
———————
Dear Friends,

It’s a lazy Monday afternoon and most people are not working because of the Labour Day public holiday.

Suddenly something caught my attention. I was surprised to see two Bangladeshi workers and a Chinese supervisor at the void deck of some blocks in Bukit Panjang, clearing cobwebs, wiping the notice boards, letter boxes and touching up the walls with paint.

At first, I wondered why these people were so hardworking on a public holiday. Then it struck me that Elections are coming, and Teo Ho Pin will coming here to make his house visits. Hence the town council arrowed these people to clean up the area and paint a nice picture for Teo Ho Pin.

This is disgusting.

By painting a nice picture for Teo Ho Pin, the town council makes it appear to him that our estates are so clean and flawless, which in most cases is untrue. As a result, how does he know what to improve on when everything has been covered up or swept under the carpet?

Furthermore, we pay conservancy charges. Why is the town council desperately getting workers to clean up the estate only when the PAP MP is coming? Why wait until today?

Regards,
TOC Reader
—————–
Defending democracy

Mr Chiam See Tong has outlined his vision to promote democracy this GE, a vision shared by other opposition parties. The opposition, in particular WP, has taken flak for their vision to entrench more alternative voices in Parliament.

As an ordinary citizen observing the criticisms, I feel a need to defend this pro-democracy vision. A First World parliament is more than just having a critical number of opposition MPs. It should also be characterized by democratic processes, including the way citizens are engaged in such a process.

Despite 50 years of elections, there exists a climate of fear amongst voters. People still doubt the legitimacy of voting secrecy. Yet while opposition candidates spend time at their rallies to educate voters, people remain skeptical. It is sad that even with facts presented squarely, voters who have gone through our top-notch education system remain frightful participants of democratic elections.

Voters are urged to vote based on their self-interests and not for the common good. Voters are warned that should they vote for the opposition, their homes will become “slums” as routine maintenance and upkeep of the estate will not be satisfactory, ultimately leading to the “downgrading” of their homes. Have we in our 45 years of nation building been promoting self-interests over common good? Has benevolence breathed its last breath in our society?

I think we have come to a turning point of our nation building history. Undoubtedly, the quality of candidates from the opposition bears testament to the success of the education system. Instead of flaming them and casting doubts on their agendas, why not celebrate the fact that we have capable people stepping forward to influence change progressively? These positive actions will make a difference in the way we impart notions of civil responsibilities among our youth and imbue a sense of rootedness for Singapore. The time is now to involve our youths in nation building, before we lose another generation to political apathy.

To be a truly progressive and democratic country, we must promote common good not self-interest. Each vote counts, so vote with your conscience. There is no need to repent, for every vote represents the way Singaporeans want to participate in Singapore’s nation building and our hopes for the future. Change is feared but is sometimes necessary. Make a difference. Take a stand, for we are at the turning point of Singapore’s nation building.

Tan Huimin
——————–
Hi TOC

I have only started following your site a few days back and am very touched, encouraged and impressed that you guys have stuck to true journalism. I stay very near Hougang Town Council and managed to catch the Workers’ Party’s team leaving for their tour. What caught me by surprise were the awkward positions that Mr Low & Mr Chen Show Mao were in. How many politicians would sit in a pick-up and tour the housing area? And I’m sure it wasn’t a show because they had no idea I was taking pictures.

In contrast, the PAP van is always empty whenever it passes my block and much more lavishing-looking.

I have an old school story to tell. My sister recalls the days (1991 – 1995) where she and her friends would run in and out of the Hougang Town Council office while waiting for the school bus. I had often told her not to do so but being in primary school,,she wanted to “enjoy the aircon” after playing catching. 20 years on, we recalled this incident, laughed at her silliness but were also thankful for the benevolence of the Town Council staff (under Mr Low’s care) and WP for making Hougang a homely place to stay in.

We are not totally dismissing the PAP as a bad party. We are definitely appreciative of whatever the ruling party has done since independence. Yet as I observed the situation during this elections, one thing stands clear – the PAP practices top-down leadership, whereas with the opposition parties (as least in the case of WP), it’s a bottom-up approach. Mr Low and his team have faithfully worked the ground and proven what it means to be servant leaders. They have gained the love and respect of Hougang-ers, which is what Singaporeans truly need.

I hope that TOC will continue to do its part on being a fair media source in Singapore, perhaps even considering reporting in other languages, especially in Mandarin. I am sure many of the older generation would need to see the ‘truth’ for themselves.

Press on!
Carmen Chen
————————-
Our Minister Mentor likes to remind us that the GDP of Singapore has been growing strongly, and only by growing the pie can there be wealth to be shared.

Lets take a look at some figures, all provided by the Department of Statistics.

Singapore’s GDP grew from $230.92 billion to $303.65 billion from 2006 to 2010, an increase of 31.5% over that period, which is pretty darn impressive for any country. As an aside, Macau increased their GDP by 100% over the same period, so it’s obvious our leaders did have GDP growth in mind when they invited the casinos to set up shop.

The math behind the GDP growth is simple: Singapore’s population, including non-residents, grew from 4.401 million to 5.076 million. GDP per capita grew from $52,466 to $59,813

It’s clear from this that the government’s strategy was to import foreigners aggressively in order to grow the economic pie.

It’s all good up to this point. Much better for the government of Singapore, since during the same period, Singapore’s foreign reserves increased from $209 billion to $289 billion from 2006 to 2010, an increase of $80 billion surplus during a period which included the end 2008-2009 recession.

In the meantime, the nominal median monthly income of a Singapore household grew from $4000 to $5000. That’s $12,000 per year. To have a rough idea of how much that would be on a national level, multiply it by 1.15 million (the number of Singapore households), which gives $13.8 billion.

That seems like peanuts next to the government’s surplus.

It seems even more puny when, after adjusting for inflation, real median household monthly income grew by only 11% over the 3 years. Housing prices, transportation prices have escalated far beyond these levels. The pie has indeed grown, but has it been fairly shared?

The government’s obsession with growing GDP and accumulating reserves to me is the whole problem. Every suggestion by th opposition is countered with an accusation of raiding the reserves. What exactly are the reserves for and how much is enough? The government hasn’t made their stance clear on that at all.

Their non-negotiable approach to using the market rate as the fair rate doesn’t consider the inflationary effects on market rates as a result of their aggressive strategy of importing growth and population. We live on a crowded island, and it’s become much more crowded in the last 3 years. Every policy made is a trade-off of interests, and the government’s policies have brought congestion, dislocation and soaring property prices. Making everybody pay market rates for essential services which have hiked because of their policies is just not going to cut it.

This election will be a good time to remind the PAP leaders that the people of Singapore too have a right to decide how the pie is cut.

Patrick Loh
—————
Imagine a small town of 87 people where everyone drinks bubble tea from the long-standing bubble tea chain, People’s Tea. If a new bubble tea shop, National Tea, is allowed to join in the competition, probably it will steal away 5 customers. Not a big deal to the People’s Tea because they will still have the majority of the pie.

Simple economics will tell us that People’s Tea will try to win back those 5 customers and prevent any further loss while National Tea will try to keep that 5 customers and gain even more. Either way, the competition will inevitably result in new flavours, cheaper drinks, more discounts and promotions that ultimately benefit the consumers.

5 years of repent and regret? Maybe. A government which will become better attuned to its citizens due to the competition? Definitely! Even if National Tea sells lousy bubble tea and after 5 years it closes down, the People’s Tea that remains will, without a doubt, be better and wiser than the one prior to the competition. To assume that one side is and will always be better is to assume our own infallibility.

John Stuart Mill once said, and I tweak part of it, “Not the violent conflict between competitions, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil: there is always a hope when people are forced to drink from both sides; it is when they attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases to have the effect of truth, by being exaggerated into falsehood…[even if People’s Tea are ultimately proven to be right all along] unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds”.

This is the reason why, I believe, more and more people are feeling resentment towards the incumbent government despite it being able to put on the table sound polices for the country.

Mankind is not infallible! May the best bubble tea win!

Soo Jia Qing

__
Dear Mr George Yeo,

This letter is written in response to your video clip made on 3rd of May 2011.
You are encouraging young Singaporeans to share their thoughts with you and,
being one of them, I am happy to oblige. Whilst the rising costs of living,
housing prices, and other hot-button issues pervade GE 2011, I would like to
address one point in this letter – the GRC system.

The GRC system was implemented in 1988 to ensure minority representation in
Parliament. However, it seems that the original purpose of the GRC system has
been abused by the PAP government.

To achieve minority representation, there is no need for five or six member GRCs. We can work with three member GRCs. I don’t seem to have heard from the PAP why a three member GRC will not work.

Every GRC is helmed by at least one minister. Lately, you mentioned that the Workers’ Party has created an emotional dilemma by contesting in Aljunied GRC. I believe any party has the right to contest in any GRC. Given the way the PAP government has structured the GRC system, any contest in any GRC will lead to a dilemma for the voters, although to varying degrees. It is clear to me that the root cause of this dilemma is the GRC system.

This GRC system will also play a pivotal role in ushering Tin Pei Ling into
Parliament if SM Goh and his team win the elections, despite her apparent
unpopularity. This betrays the spirit of the one man, one vote system. If the PAP
Marine Parade team wins the elections, her presence in the Parliament will make
us feel that the PAP government can put anyone in Parliament, regardless of
whether he or she has the approval of the people. This has already been proven
in Chia Shi Lu’s case.

Assuming that the GRC system is, as alleged, the best way to ensure minority representation, has the PAP attempted to find alternatives to it, given its overwhelming shortfalls? I am not sure of your personal views of this system, but PM Lee has already said that the GRC system is here to stay. How do you expect us to feel that PAP is listening to us?

I have listened to the PAP’s explanation of the purpose of the GRC system ad
nauseam, and I seriously doubt anything can change. Your system is cast in stone; you cannot and will not change it. My vote will be my voice.

Yours truly,
A Young Singaporean
Hong Weilun

Related posts:

1. Letters to TOC on GE
2. Letters to TOC (Part 2)