TR EMERITUS

OPINION For far too long, the Singapore opposition has been campaigning on the need to provide some sort of checks and balances to the PAP in Parliament during every general election. Though each individual political party has their own manifestos, they are more of academic interest since no single opposition party is strong enough to win the elections and form the government on its own. That is precisely why the opposition has been a punching bag for the PAP for the last twenty years or so - it is too weak and divided to replace the PAP to govern Singapore. Elections are about choosing the political party or coalition to govern the country and NOT having more opposition in Parliament to hold the ruling party accountable. The opposition seriously needs a radical strategic rethink if it should continue its tried and tested method of convincing Singaporeans to put more opposition in Parliament to check on the PAP. As the elections over the past decade have shown, the most credible opposition candidates besides the two incumbent MPs usually garner no more than 46 percent of the valid votes. This shows that it is not enough for the opposition to swing the middle ground of voters over to them by harping on the need to have an opposition in Parliament. Besides, the impending changes in the political system to put more non-PAP MPs in Parliament will probably dilute the enthusiasm among voters to vote for the opposition since they are guaranteed a place in Parliament as NCMPs anyway. The opposition should and must go for the juggernaut this time and not restrict itself to playing the bridesmaid in order to stand a realistic chance of challenging the PAP. It has to show Singaporeans that it has what it takes to govern Singapore and it has an alternative, bold and viable vision for the nation which is drastically different from the PAP. To quote an example: The voters are like an attached girl who is now pursued by another man. One has been her boyfriend for a number of years - the PAP. She hardly knows the new suitor who has expressed interest in her - the opposition. In order for this outsider to win the heart of the girl, he must be prepared to give her much more than her current boyfriend can offer. This man (opposition) should not be waiting for the girl (voters) to break up with her boyfriend (PAP) before going after her. He should indicate his interest early, pursue her relentlessly, propose to her and tell her what's in store for her in the future if she chooses him to even stand a fighting chance. Similarly, the opposition must reassure voters and convince them that they are capable of doing a better job than the PAP before there can be a significant swing in votes to them. Just harping on providing checks and balances to the PAP will not get the opposition anywhere - they will win at most 40 - 50 percent of the popular vote which is hardly enough to deny the PAP its traditional two-thirds majority in Parliament. The girl's heart is wavering due to the broken promises of her boyfriend. It is time for the suitor to go for the kill. An increasing number of Singaporeans are getting peeved with the PAP - young Singaporeans are struggling to buy HDB flats and start families of their own, middle-aged couples are stressing themselves out to make ends meet and elderly Singaporeans are frustrated at not being able to withdraw their CPFs - the ground is sweet for the opposition. The opposition has seen a number of qualified tertiary-educated professionals joining its ranks in the last few years including two former government scholars who became members of the Reform Party lately. While the parties may be weak individually, they will have a credible, impressive and formidable team if they stand together on a common platform with the intention of forming a coalition government to replace the PAP. There are three things the opposition need to do immediately: 1. Get all the opposition parties under a common coalition, e.g. the Singapore Democratic Alliance. 2. Use a catchy slogan which resonates well with the voters, e.g. "Singapore for Singaporeans." 3. Draft a comprehensive common manifesto documenting clearly the changes in policies which will be made if the opposition were to come to power. The next step will be to flood cyberspace with their campaign videos, manifestos and messages till they become deeply ingrained in the minds of the voters. This is the art of propaganda: one, you have to repeat a message again, again and again several times before they can register and have an impact on your intended audience and two, the message must be consistent, catchy and conspicuous. Having too many messages from too many parties will only confuse the audience and dilute their strength. We are now standing on the crossroads of history. The next general election will determine the collective fate of millions of Singaporeans who are born and bred here. The opposition must not let Singaporeans down again. Go for the juggernaut and teach the PAP a lesson it will never forget so that it will not take Singaporeans for granted ever again.   EDITORS’ NOTE: Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans.   Related articles: >> Triggering the Singapore political tsunami: How a highly motivated minority can sway an apathetic majority >> Singaporeans think highly of opposition’s chances in next general election >> What will happen to Singapore if the opposition wins the next general election >> Dr Ng Eng Hen welcomes greater contest from opposition >> Chee slammed again for introducing confrontational politics in Singapore >> Lim Hwee Hua: opposition “trying” to work the ground for next GE >> Let the next GE be a primer for Singapore’s own political tsunami >> Are opposition MPs becoming redundant in Singapore ? >> Why do we need so many strawberry PAP MPs in Parliament? >> PAP MPs complain of fast-pace of parliamentary debates >> Why PAP MPs are no more but a “wayang” >> A disaster in the making: PAP’s “instant tree” mentality >> Yes-men PAP MPs embarrassed themselves by saying instinctively “yes” to wrongly reduce budget   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

A hapless George Yeo said in Parliament yesterday that he was "puzzled" by Romania's latest diplomatic note to Singapore that former "charge d'affaires Silviu Ionescu continues to enjoy diplomatic immunity for the hit-and-run case of Dec 15." In a reply to a question from PAP Irene Ng on the case, George Yeo said: "....it seems to imply that Romania is now claiming that Dr Ionescu was engaged in official duties at the time of the accident and we do not understand how this can possibly be the case." The Ministry of Foreign Affairs had said earlier that based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Rights, Ionescu was not protected by diplomatic immunity for his deeds and he loses immunity for private acts once he leaves his post in the host country. Mr Yeo added that the red notice issued by Interpol has been "suspended" due to "disagreement" over the intepretation of the article without further elaborating. Former Romania diplomat to Singapore Silviu Ionescu was implicated in a double hit-and-run road traffic accident which killed a 31 year old Malaysian man. For some inexplicable reasons, he was allowed by the Singapore authorities to leave the country three days after the accident. As Foreign Minister, Mr Yeo did not comment on the case until a month later in which he told the media "what happened was very bad." However he was quick to urge Singaporeans to rally around his good friend Jack Neo when he was caught with his pants down in a scandalous affair with a 22 year old girl. There is nothing much Mr Yeo can do about Romania's latest flip-flop except to "pray" that Romania will care about its "face" half as much as Singapore: "Romania is a member state of the European Union which prides itself on its reputation as a community of values. Bucharest understands that more than Romania's own reputation is at stake and that it must live up to the EU's high standards," he said. Given Ionescu's belligerent stance against the Singapore government and Romania's procrastination on the matter, it appears that he may not be returning to Singapore soon after all.   Please join our Facebook page here and invite your friends to do so to create awareness of the current affairs affecting Singaporeans. Please use our online web form to contact us.  Read More →

Dear Mr Teo,   I refer to the Straits Times report of your speech at the Kent Ridge Ministerial Forum dated 6 Apr 2010.   Your reported answer to worried young couples who asked you how they can afford a flat with prices going through the roof is to look at the Sengkang and Punggol flats right before their eyes.  These flats that are supposedly nicer than a generation ago now house families that went through the same pains during the last property boom ten years ago.   But does the purchase of a Sengkang or Punggol flat ten years ago answer the question of affordability?  With a possible 30-year loan to service, that question cannot be answered until 20 years later.  For by then, these young couples would no longer be young any more and they would be asking you another question: 'Do we have enough to retire?'   So you see, your answer is quite simply no answer.  Sure you can 'buy' a flat by taking up a mountain of debt.  But that does not mean that the flat is therefore affordable.  Because you would ultimately have to repay the loan and if you spend your entire life servicing your housing loan, what would you be left with for retirement?  If you have to sell your flat back to the government for retirement funds, doesn't that show that you never earned enough to really get to keep the flat to begin with?  Doesn't that show that the flat was actually not affordable in the first place?   The young couples who bought during the last peak of 1995/96 would have ended up paying a lot more than those who bought later, between 2000 and 2006.  The Senkang flat bought in 1995/96 will not be worth more today than a similar one bought between 2000 and 2006 even though the former cost a lot more.  In other words, the young couples who asked you that question a decade ago paid more for nothing.  So if they were to ask you today why have they paid more for nothing, what are you going to tell them?   You said if we keep our expectations realistic, public housing will be affordable.  But expectations have not changed, prices have.  The same Senkang flat that was $200,000 three years ago is now $300,000.  You expect us to expect that to be realistic?   You said that generations after generations of Singaporeans have been able to afford flats.  What you mean is that generations after generations of Singaporeans have been made to sign a lifetime contract to pay for flats.  It is only now that the early generations have finally paid up their flats but are finding themselves with no money for retirement.  For the later generations, their time will come. They too will find themselves with no money for retirement.  Because generations after generations have paid all their moneys all their lives to the HDB and the government who have in turn lost them in billion dollar gambles like the UBS.   I can say quite honestly that yours is a lousy answer that hopefully doesn't mean that you are a lousy minister.     Thank you     Ng Kok Lim  Read More →