Singapore Election Watch

PAP confession: The regret

2013-03-03T18:26:00.000+08:00

Dear Mr. Lee,

This is a joint letter by 4 life-long friends who are in our 50s and 60s. After speaking to many colleagues, friends, and family, it saddens us to know that most fellow Singaporeans share similar grave concerns. In case you are wondering, none of the 4 of us have ever voted for the workers party, let alone affiliated to any political parties. Amongst the 4 of us, 2 of us are PAP voters, one has never voted as he lived in Tanjong Pagar, and another had always voted the "anything but PAP".

We beg you to fix things before its too late. Our children are now either in the workforce or freshly graduated, and they are at risk of abandoning the country for greener pastures.

Back in school, they were so full of with youthful dreams and brimming with ambition; telling us how they want to be what they want to be, and what they want to do when they become adults. It was a priceless joy that any parent could wish for to see their sons and daughter excited about living. What we did not expect is how the Singapore we built has left them feeling bleak about their future. Those sparkles of joy they had in their eyes were not seen much over that 6 years.

Our younger generation have been facing a terribly harsh job market for the last 6 years, flooded with hungry and desperate foreign PMETs willing to accept lower salaries. This resulted in salaries to be not much differebr from 10 years ago. Wage increment has not keep up with unbelievable rate of inflation over the last 6 years.In the private sector, fresh graduates are lucky if they can get anything above $3,300 right out of school while the poly and ITE graduates start with $1,500 to 2,300.

Those new in the workforce for 3 to 8 years, have no shortcuts in life and are subjected to climb up through usual career progression paths. With salaries just slightly 10 years ago, they have been finding it hard to keep up with the accelerated "economic progress". The price levels in Singapore has soared beyond comprehension in the past 6 years.

It is unbelievable how Singaporeans have been pay such amounts for non-luxury items items like:

$700 to 1,200 monthly child care fees without subsidies

$3,000 to $9,000 to give birth to a child in a hospital

$150k to own a bloody Toyota Corolla for 10 years (excl. insurance and road tax)

$300k to $1.1 million to lease a pre-owned "subsidised" government housing apartment for

$300k to $1.1 million to lease a pre-owned "subsidised" government housing apartment for

$1 million at least for the smallest studio apartments by private developed freehold housing

$192k annually for someone who is supposed to speak up for them in parliament

And of course, $2.2 million before bonuses annually for a Prime minister (after a 36% discount)

The items listed above have never been out of reach for median-income Singaporeans in our time, but are now seemingly unaffordable for our children.

Wage increment has not kept up with unbelievable rate of inflation over the last 6 years. It is sad many of their aspiration is now measured in dollars, as they find it hard to cope as a young parent. Are even driven to moonlight just to to supplement their day job. Doesn't it hurt you that to know some of our sons have chosen to driving taxis at in their early 30s? It pains to see us young Singaporeans make such a choice due to mid-junior management jobs pay lesser than what a taxi driver can earn.

Many made the choice to give up their dreams for utilitarian approach to life, taking up jobs which they had never desired. Are even driven to moonlight just to to supplement their day job. It pains us to see our childrens' aspiration reduced to one that is now measured in dollars Doesn't it hurt you that to know some of our sons have chosen to driving taxis at in their early 30s?

It is worrying that some young Singaporeans make such a choice simply because mid-junior management wages are lower a taxi driver's potential income. This cash and time poor generation can no longer afford to socialise, procreate normally, after putting in an average of more than 10-14 hours daily at work. They have been working hard to the extend of neglecting their social life beyond human work-life balance. You resort to interfering by setting up programmes to urge the them to paktor, nag them incessantly to get married and offer them angbao money to make babies. Recently, you even had to implement for them priority queues to the normal skip 2-3 year long wait to get a flat if they start a family early. The saddest part is, these the dollars earned depreciate so quickly in real value due to our country's crazy raise in price levels in property, car ownership and our daily daily needs.

We have already nagged enough at them to get married and settle down early. They feedback to us: paktor is expensive, getting married is expensive. To prevent them from going down the road of being old bachelors or spinsters, some of us even give our children hundreds of thousand to buy a house just because the prices are simply out of reach for them. Many of them have to take up 20 to 50 year just to purchase a hdb flat. Back in our days, a 25 year loan was already quite ridiculous to us.

On top of the financial strain they have, they have to bear with a transport policy which makes driving a luxury in Singapore. Those who cannot afford driving has to failing public transport system which causes them to be late for work on a monthly, or at worse, fortnightly basis. The packed train stations and carriages, the increasing foreign, unfamiliar and unfriendly sounding / looking environment adds more emotional strains to their daily material worries.

Can you recall just barely a decade ago, Singaporeans could easily live the typical Singaporean dream of the 5Cs was within reach for families with more than $10,000 of combined income. Life was good for a family earning more than $5,000, and comfortable for those earning $2,500 a month. Unfortunate low-income families earning less than $ 1,250 could still get by and survive. What about now?

Its sad to see our country regress from the first world we have built. For them to have an equivilant quality of life to what we have has become so unaffordable that it is out of reach, let alone wish for a better. The government should stand back and take a look how much have exactly have the people really progressed / regressed as a nation in the last decade.

It is the truth that national economic progress favouring the cash and asset rich have outpaced the large majority of us. This is due to the majority being outpaced by widening gap of rich-poor. The luckier ones among us with well-to-do parents have gone on to become multi-millionaires due leveraging on property prices while most of us made our comfortable Singapore dreams come true lives with our own hands.

In a reflection of the harsh reality our children are facing, majority of Singaporeans are already unhappy with the government as of early 2012. Of the 2,000 Singaporeans it surveyed, Mindshare found 56% chose agreed or strongly agreed that, “given a choice, I would like to migrate”.

62% of those polled believe that our political leaders are paid too much these days.

65% think they will not be able to retire comfortably in Singapore.

72% think they cannot afford to get sick these days due to high medical costs.

73% think that public housing prices are getting out of hand.

75% think they should not be spending their entire working life paying off housing loans.

69% believe there are too many foreign workers taking up job opportunities in our society today

73% believe that Singaporeans should be granted priority in employment.

On our end, our parents are nearing the the final chapters of their lives, medical care and the cost of living been rising and is already not easy for even for the many of us who earn a good income. What about the lower income earners?

All we really want to retire happily in peace, play with our grandchildren, educate them and enjoy the home we have built with our family right here in Singapore. We have been working hard over the last 30-40 years and it is only fair for us to demand this. We believe in the potential of our children and they are perfectly capable of taking care of us when we are old. It baffling for you suggested that we need to bring in foreigners to take care of of us.

The rationale of Singapore being an immigrant society is already long passé. Indeed, our parents were immigrants; but they have worked hard to urbanise the whole island of Singapore and brought to its peak in 2006/2007. To suggest otherwise would be completely rude and ridiculous.

The fact that our young generation has a bleak outlook even before they hit their prime is disheatening. We beg you not to let the wonderful things that Singapore gave us disappear in regression. We need a country our children can enjoy life like how we did after working so hard for it. It pains to watch our younger generation struggle in last 6 years at the home we have built for them. It will be too much to bear to see them leave our home for a better opportunities in life elsewhere.

Tolong tolong: Please don't drive our children out of Singapore.

Yours sincerely,

"Made-in-Singapore" Singaporeans
Tan Ah Kow . Minah Binte Said . Muthu Veerasamy . Veronica Simons De Souza

IMPORTANT NOTE: Other than our obvious psuedonyms. All contents of the letter is factual, true and researched. A simple search online would verify.

Voice of a young mother in Singapore

2013-02-28T01:25:00.002+08:00

By: Camille Chew

"Sometimes I don't even bother keeping up with the parliament as I feel that our PAP speakers, especially the new ones, seem to not make sense when they speak. I understand that they're a bunch of elite scholars who have studied so high up, greatly educated. Yet what we need are leaders who listen to us, who understand where we are coming from."

Like the minister who said that it is possible to survive on a wage of $1000 a month and afford a HDB. If you want to prove a point, show it in action. Don't just talk only. Why wouldn't he give up his luxurious lifestyle and show us how he survives on $1000 for maybe a timeframe of just half a year?

I was at Hong Lim with my 5month old daughter on Saturday. I really wanted to voice out my opinions but the rain took a toll on my little girl and I had to leave.

I feel that it is an injustice done to us when the media and the government try to paint a picture whereby we are xenophobics or racists. But honestly, we have been welcoming our foreign friends for decades; working hand in hand with them, forging friendships. However the problem that has arisen is that we are afraid of OVERPOPULATING. Not that we want to close our doors to foreign talent. I understand that foreign talents are necessary in the growth of our economy, but shouldn't there be a line drawn so as not to upset the balance?

In a previous comment, I had made a few examples; I have a personal friend who has just given birth a few months ago, and as the government had stated, we are ENTITLED to a 3month maternity leave. However, my friend had to place her baby in the care of a stranger and head back to work after just one month. Why? Because her boss had told her that if she had no intention of working, he could replace her easily with a CHINA worker who would cost much lower than the salary she was wielding. What has caused such a precarious situation? It seems that foreign labour is so cheap that it is damaging our own rice bowls. Isn't this a problem?

Another example was an article I read recently which exposed of a top educational institution in Singapore who rejected our own SINGAPOREAN children and accepted PRC STUDENTS because their parents were able to contribute greatly to the school funds. Is there no cause of fear for my children's future?! Will my children be deprived of a proper education just because I cannot afford to bribe the school?

The government keeps talking about helping young couples. Well, here is coming from ground zero. I'm sure we do appreciate the extra increment in the baby bonus, but how significant would that be? With the cost of living going up, when we can barely afford a HDB flat, when child care and preschool fees are shooting sky high, how much can the extra $2k help us? Somebody posted a retort on Facebook saying that our foreign expat friends can afford one or two private houses while Singaporeans are struggling with one HDB flat. And yet, so much land is invested in building condominiums and private houses. Who are they for?!

Maternity and paternity leave encouraged by the government yet young parents are afraid that if they take longer leave, they will be replaced by foreigners.

And also, the whole scheme that has been proposed to help young couples seems to be targeted at the middle income group. How about the lower income group? I know of a few fathers who, instead of having a full time job, work several part time jobs just to earn a higher salary. Yet these benefits do not apply to them? Not to mention the f&b nightlife industry, the maritime industry, the technical industry and all other special jobs are not entitled to all these extra help! And these are the people who require it most.

I had a suggestion that I wrote into my MP before but I never got a reply. Why not try having an infant/child care at all the major corporations like in the USA? Or at least a childcare centre for every area in Singapore and not just the HDB hubs with higher children population? I have several friends who are young mothers who all appreciated the idea of having their children nearer to them when they work. They can even pop by and check on their children during their office lunch hours. Wouldn't that be a better investment to look at rather to spend our people's money on FIREWORKS? And having childcare available even in the quieter areas might boost baby births as the couples might just realize the convenience and not have to worry about finding a babysitter or a childcare centre which is far away from their home!

Another question that has been on my mind is that politics be politics, but shouldn't the PAP work hand in hand with our opposition parties to provide the best for our people?! What I see is bitterness and sarcasm and sour grapes from the PAP especially in the recent Punggol event. Why should our citizens suffer for the governmental competition?

Another article I came across that surprised me was the comment made by the minister saying that our men; our brothers, fathers, husbands who serve NS should make our foreign friends feel safe and create a sense of security for them? Our brave men give up TWO years of their lives to learn to protect their families, not strangers.

Sometimes I don't even bother keeping up with the parliament as I feel that our PAP speakers, especially the new ones, seem to not make sense when they speak. I understand that they're a bunch of elite scholars who have studied so high up, greatly educated. Yet what we need are leaders who listen to us, who understand where we are coming from.

Like the minister who said that it is possible to survive on a wage of $1000 a month and afford a HDB. If you want to prove a point, show it in action. Don't just talk only. Why wouldn't he give up his luxurious lifestyle and show us how he survives on $1000 for maybe a timeframe of just half a year?

We don't need the PAP to tell us "oh the statistics say it is possible" or "research and analysis shows that this can be done". We are humans, not robots.

I have a friend who has 7 children. Her husband had left her, and she has to look after her aging mother. She works two jobs and takes home a salary of $1000 plus. Yet she has been surviving all this while without help from the government. THESE are the people who have the right to say "hey look, it is possible!" Not a minister who has been living comfortably all his life.

I do not know how to run a government, neither do I know how to run a country. But I know how to run my family. And Singaporeans are one big family. And we are just protecting our family.

Xenophobia label used to attack opponents of bad policies

2013-02-20T13:52:00.003+08:00

By: Lucky Tan

Above is BBC's coverage of the protest at Hong Lim. The first part discusses the trade-off for Singaporeans and how the low TFR has led to the need for immigrants in our country. Everyone that spoke missed the point that the foreign influx is far larger than what is needed to compensate for low TFR - we had influx upwards of 100+K per year which is many times higher than the number needed to compensate for our low birth rate. But what I find interesting is the discussion on xenophobia towards the end of the programme. A foreigner, Simon Littlewood, who lived in Singapore for 20 years said:

"Well I have lived there(Singapore) for 20 years now. I think it would be unfortunate to exaggerate what is going on. Well having said that, I was the subject of a xenophobic tirade for the first time ever in Singapore a few months ago which gave me a sense of feeling (?)...wealthy foreigners are extremely visible in Singapore. Despite Singapore's per capita income being among the highest in the world, there is a significant percentage of Singaporean households that earn very little money and I can understand how this sense of displacement must be difficult. But the fact is the system in Singapore by the PAP is based on the notion that if you make Singapore a welcoming place for wealthy corporations and foreigners by taxing them and taking their money you can provide an environment which is beneficial for all. Unfortunately, that foreign money has led to extreme growth in cost...that hurts the society"....

For those of us who are against xenophobia, we are dismayed that it has surfaced in the past few years. Singaporeans, being the children and grandchildren of immigrants, are generally not xenophobic and we have welcome foreigners in the past when they came in at a sustainable rate. B ad policies in recent years have led to negative effects that have caused Singaporeans to be angry. Many have directed this anger at govt policies that they feel should be changed. Unfortunately, the mainstream media, the PAP and staunch PAP supporters have often pinned this term "xenophobic" on opponents of PAP policies. The latest episode is the accusation that WP's Low Thia Kiang had incited xenophobia by speaking up against the White Paper.

But read and think about what Simon Littlewood said in the BBC interview. What has caused the rising sense of insecurity and displacement among Singaporeans? It is easy for those of us who live in financial security and in comfort to tell others to behave better and not misdirect their anger at foreigners who are just here to better their own lives and support their families back home. I personally have not felt any threat to my job and my financial security so it is easy for me not to harbor any negative feelings, But put yourself in the shoes of Singaporeans struggling under intense competition with wages depressed by foreign workers willing to take the same job at a lower pay...and the breadwinner who lost his job due to his age to younger imported workers. We should spare some thought for those who have suffered and to label their feeling of insecurity and anger as xenophobia ...and their cries for help and frustration as xenophobic is arrogant and simplistic. For those who have implemented or supported these extreme policies that has pushed a large segment of the population to the edge to now stick ugly labels and demand acceptance is just irresponsible, insensitive and shameful.

Please Don't Fall For PAP's Gimmick: We Are Not Xenophobic

2013-02-20T13:16:00.002+08:00

Singaporeans, please don’t fall for it.

I have said it again, and I will say it again. This Singaporean vs foreigner sentiment is a gimmick, it’s a ploy.

Please, I don’t know how many times I need to say this, but we need to remember who we are directing our unhappiness to. It is not to the foreigners.

Singaporeans, the reason why there will be too many people on this small island of Singapore is because of a government who has implemented bad policies which have not been properly thought out by them. The reason why this country is too crowded is because this government has made population projections, which they couldn’t adhere to, and where the actual numbers ran out of proportion, and where because they didn’t plan properly, there simply isn’t enough infrastructure and diffusion of spaces to keep up with the speed of population growth. This government has bad planning, bad foresight and bad policies – now, let’s get this right, please.

Who is to blame for the current problem? If there are good policies that are enacted, what do you think will happen to Singapore? We will have a more moderate flow of people coming in and going out of Singapore. The growth of the population will be more balanced and measured. And we will not be in a state of unhappiness. So, what is the problem? The government’s policies of managing the flow is flawed and not thought out carefully.

Now, I speak in thorough disdain and displeasure of this government because:

The government’s responsibility is to maintain and upkeep the social fabric of Singapore. As a citizen, it is our right to ask – how dare PAP bring in people without any consideration of the well-being of all the people that will reside on this island? How dare PAP not come out now and firmly put to rest the discussion about Singaporeans vs foreigners, by apologising for their bad policies. PAP needs to amend this policy, and not simply retain the policies and put unnatural curbs on the number of people coming into Singapore, without any other adjustments to business costs or wages. This has thus not only resulted in a twin problem socially, but also among businesses, who are thus stifled.
Why are foreigners getting the flak in the discourse of Singaporeans vs foreigners? PAP lured the foreigners to come into Singapore, and then left them in Singapore to fend for the criticisms that they are facing, in large part because PAP could not plan their policies well and resulted in over-crowding. And why are the foreigners left to pick up the pieces while PAP continues to sit on their high horse, planning for more people to come in, which will allow for more foreigners to be verbally abuse, and possibly in other ways? They didn’t ask to be abused. PAP invited them into Singapore, and if you have the cheek to ask them in, then you jolly have some basic decency to take care of them. Otherwise, you manage your flow better.
Why does this government allow Singaporeans to lose our moral character because of bad policies that you cannot even plan properly? Now, this government allows the conversations of the people to degenerate into bad mouthing one another, and this government doesn’t even come out and apologise for the bad policies that they had implemented, which has resulted in Singaporeans feeling so stressed that they have allowed themselves to speak badly of another.

Where is the human decency and humanity of this government?

Singaporeans, please, if our government is unable to maintain their respectability and their standards, at least we, as a people, should have a decency to speak up and stand up for what is right. The right thing to do is not to get angry at the foreigners, or to get angry at one another. The right thing to do is to refocus our attention and direct it at the perpetrator – this ineffective government.

Accusation Against Mr Low Thia Kiang on ‘Inciting Xenophobia’

Picture credit: Martyn See’s Facebook

Today, The Straits Times reported on how Mr Li Yeming, vice-chairman of the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations, had made a charge on Worker’s Party chief Low Thia Khiang that he was “inciting xenophobia”. Li “accused Mr Low and the WP of fanning anti-foreigner and anti-immigrant sentiments during the White Paper debate.”

Now, let me be clear – who was it who started talking about the “Singaporean core”? Who was it who started talking about increasing the population of Singapore to 6.9 million, such that there will be over-crowding in Singapore? Who was it who wanted to grow Singapore at all costs, while pretending to want to keep a “Singaporean core” in 2030, which by 2040, will no longer be the “core”? It was not Mr Low Thia Khiang.

Mr Low Thia Kiang had to speak up in parliament to protect the people on this island from over-crowding. And thus he suggested slowing down the pace of growth in the first decade, and then increasing the pace of growth at a moderate rate in the subsequent decade, when the infrastructure has been increased after the first decade. Mr Low wanted to do what was right to protect Singaporeans, foreigners and anyone who will reside on this island.

Who was it who didn’t bat an eyelid as to how bad the situation might be in Singapore but then, only because of the pressure put on them by Singaporeans, passed a separate motion to ask Singaporeans not to focus on the white paper, and started discussing about how perhaps, we need to look into building up the infrastructure first, before we talk about the population projection?

It is Mr Li Yeming who has gotten his facts terribly wrong. Perhaps Mr Li might not have known better, but why would he? Mr Li is from the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations. Have you taken a look at their website? On their website, PM Lee Hsien Loong is the patron of the Federation of the 14th session of the Governing Council.

The federation is also very proud to display pictures of our PAP politicians, such as DPM Teo Chee Hean, Vivian Balakrishnan and President Tony Tan.

Now, where is PM Lee, DPM Teo, Mr Balakrishnan and Mr Tan when Mr Li from the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations had decided to send this letter of accusation to Mr Low Thia Kiang?

As Mr Low had put it, “In the past, those who held different political views from the Government would often be charged for dividing society, inciting the people or different races, or being against national interest.”

Now, I ask of my fellow Singaporeans, who is it who is holding different political views and who is dividing our society now? Who is the one who is inciting the people of different nationalities? Are we Singaporeans protesting against PAP’s population and economic policies because we are “against national interest”? Clearly, PAP is the one who is against national interest by pushing through policies which harm the large proportion of the people living on this island.

As I have said before, this government is not interested in protecting the rights of the people. This government is interested in seeing the people on this island degenerate into bad mouthing and mudslinging. The more you do it, the more it takes the attention away from them. And so, now, Mr Li Yeming from the Singapore Federation of Chinese Clan Associations has also been thrown into the fray to add to the divide and rifts that is already tearing Singapore apart.

May I remind you that for many associations and clans in Singapore, they have ties with this government. May I remind you that The Straits Times is also a mouthpiece of this government, without nary a sense of pride or integrity. And now, we have seen it for ourselves how this clan and this newspaper has sold their morality and soul to the government by reporting on a fellow Singaporean who, they claim, is inciting xenophobia, when Mr Low isn’t even the one to first speak of the “Singaporean core” or the 6.9 million population. Mr Low is not the one inciting xenophobia. Rather, the accuser is.

Right now, Mr Low and the Worker’s Party hold the high moral ground among the people in Singapore. After PAP’s disastrous showing at the Punggol East by-election and their unsuccessful attempt to sway the people to buy into their population white paper, and with the protest against the white paper over the weekend well-attended by a few thousand people in Singapore, PAP is starting to feel anxious and nervous once again. What better way than to find ways to compromise on Mr Low’s integrity?

Singapore for Singaporeans: Xenophobic?

At the protest over the weekend, an individual had held up a signboard with the words, “Singapore for Singaporeans”. There have been many discussions ongoing about how this individual might also be displaying xenophobic sentiments.

Singaporeans, I will be wary to jump into conclusions. You have to understand that at the current state of mind that many people in Singapore are in, there is a careful cautiousness that pervades the people, because of the current sensitivity of how the issue of Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans is being discussed. If this signboard was held even 10 or 15 years ago, would it have thrown up such divisive sentiments?

Now, I have spoken to this individual and I know where he is coming from. I myself have written in one of my articles about how we need to build a Singaporean Singapore. Why do we say that? In light of the current context, many people will be fearful of fanning xenophobic sentiments, and thus the words we use or the things we say can be held accountable to doing that. Rightfully so, this means that we need to be even more cautious in the way we express ourselves. As a responsible and thoughtful society, we should ensure that we respect the rights of others. In this context, the choice of word use to describe a “Singaporean Singapore” might not be the most enlightened.

But, please allow me to explain. I share this individual’s understanding of the matter because when we talk about a “Singaporean Singapore”, this is talked about, in comparison with a “PAP’s Singapore”. I do not want a Singapore where PAP makes all the decisions and where this Singapore is sculpted by the one-side or 80-sided PAP politicians. I want a Singapore where all Singaporeans have a voice in making Singapore the Singapore that we want to live in and where we can call home. When we talk about a Singaporean Singapore, we are talking about all citizens who have a right to vote, who get to have a stake and a say in this country, and who get to make decisions for ourselves, and where we do not want to have our rights taken away by the 88 PAP politicians, who believe that we should be the ones dictating how our lives should be, and by the PAP. This is the context that this is talked about, and as I understand, how the individual feels.

There are many ways to look at a situation, and the words that have been used, “Singaporean Singapore”, are used in the context of our electoral and citizenry rights. Does that mean as a Singaporean who gets to decide the fates and fortunes of our country, that we get to slight others who are thus not Singaporean? If we were to think so, then I would be terribly embarrassed. True, in light of the ongoing discussion, the choice of “Singaporean Singapore” might be poor word choice which I would most likely not use in my subsequent articles, because I do not want what I say to be misconstrued, because of the many interpretations that can occur.

PAP Has Lost Its Moral Authority

But let’s be clear. I think at this point, many of us have an amazing awareness of how we need to be careful in our thoughts and attitudes, as I have, and as this individual in question has as well.

But the positive outcome of this episode is that in this discussion and in a discussion which the protest at Hong Lim Park on Saturday was able to refocus onto, everyone on this island has to be cognizant that we shouldn’t be directing our unhappiness at anyone individual, be it a Singaporean or foreigner, or people of any other identities or characteristics.

It is clear that the current situation that we face in Singapore now is due to bad policies and a government which refuses to apologise for the bad policies and a government which continues to fan nationalistic sentiments and divisions. This government had started the use of the idea of the “Singaporean core”. This government has not stepped out to apologise for the xenophobic sentiments that they have caused by the usage of this terminology. And this government has not stepped out to recognize the upset and divisions that they have caused to a large population of Singaporeans, but continue to slight the people as being significant. This government doesn’t want to take the people seriously, because it continues to think that it knows what right and will continue to play divisive politics where it can. This is a highly irresponsible and reprehensible government which should be ashamed of itself and its own doing, and soon-to-be undoing.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said in 2008 that he believed that the optimum size of the population in Singapore should be 5.5 million, so that we can “preserve the open space and have a sense of comfort”. Perhaps our current ministers have so big a salary and a house that their open spaces are so well-preserved in their bungalows that they believe that they have achieved the sense of comfort that they need, that other Singaporeans can be thrown into small living spaces of 60 or 90 square metres, without needing a sense of comfort.

As Mr Low had said, “I hope to see a society where civilized debate can create a consensus and cohesiveness, and a Singapore where people feel a sense of belonging to their nation.” Mr Goh Chok Tong had said.

I think we can see for ourselves who the leader of this country truly is.

*Article first appeared on www.TheHeartTruths.com

Speeches: Protest Against White Paper on Population at Hong Lim Park

2013-02-17T22:39:00.002+08:00

A citizen's on-site audio recording organized of a series of 13 speeches (in chronological sequence) made by various segments of Singapore's population during a protest against the white paper on population at Hong Lim Park, 16 February 2013. The protest was organized by Transitioning.org.

This instance of recording contains statements made by the organizer, Mr Gilbert Goh & emcee, Mr Kuan before the speakers came to stage to share their thoughts.

The motivation for this series of online audio recordings is to provide an accessible resource to speeches made at Hong Lim Park that day. This provides listeners another avenue to understand what took place at the park and complement other similar resources on the Net.

Recordings lasted between 7 to 30 minutes, the longest & last segment contains the singing of the national anthem by participants, so patience is urged to obtain a fair assessment of what took place that day.

Kindly forgive missed segments or electronic noise recorded due to nearby cellular phone signals. Recording quality was affected by the rain present most of that afternoon but together with the ambient sound from participants, it is hoped that the audio atmosphere that late afternoon was faithfully captured.

Intro Gilbert & Mr Kuan

Ravi Philemon

Cradius Tan

Leong Sze Hian

Samantha Chia

Kumaran Pillai

Sem Teo

Tan Kin Lian

Nizam Ismail

Lee Kah Jing

Lee Kah Jing

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

Vincent Wijeysingha

Tan Jee Say & National Anthem

A proud moment at the Hong Lim Park protest

2013-02-17T20:20:00.002+08:00

By: Jagwinder Singh

It was a proud moment to be a Singaporean yesterday, when 6000 of us, stood shoulder to shoulder under the unforgiving shower of rain to protest in unison against the latest draconian policy which had been shoved down our throats.

However the irony of protesting in a government sanctioned site, nestled away from the view of busy Chinatown blocked by towering woods only re-affirmed the fact that we are still, as much as we hate to admit it, a repressed people.

It was regretful to say the least that the strong message of protest against one of the most obscene population figures conjured up by a totalitarian government could not have reached the oblivious masses, whose only accurate source of information would have been the mainstream media. Not surprisingly, virtual tabloids affiliated to SPH covering the event maliciously published figures of "only a handful", "hundreds" or "more than a thousand" to drive home the ongoing propaganda against state opposition and civil society bodies.

Imagine the impact a peaceful march to the Parliament House would have made. In the past decade, It was easy to subdue a handful of SDP activists carrying out peace protests outside key government installations and embassies because that's all they were. A handful. The state knew it was easy to leave such random acts of lunacy unreported, or create a perception of disgust in the minds of fellow Singaporeans.

Well not anymore. The spectacle I witnessed yesterday was the evolution of a once meek, passive and gullible populace to a brave, bold and intelligent breed of lions. With only 6000 at the start, numbers could have easily swelled up to double, or even triple had the protest come into contact with the general public. I was convinced that at this point of time, what we needed was the re-emergence of non-violent agitation and civil disobedience to curb the abusive powers of the state.

The only way to realize this is by having our civil rights and liberties; freedoms of speech, assembly, association and movement unconditionally restored without any parallel laws criminalizing them. Before asking for any referendum, let's campaign for the restoration of our total freedoms, so that the voices of yesterday will be able to reach the sleeping majority of 60%.

Pictures: Population White Paper Protest, 16 Feb 2013

2013-02-17T14:09:00.002+08:00

A large crowd braved a drizzle to gather at the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park in Singapore on Saturday 16 Feb 2013 in a rare protest against a government white paper on population.

The crowd began to gather in the afternoon for the protest organized by Gilbert Goh, a 51-year-old known as an unemployment counselor. Organizers lined up a list of 12 speakers, including activists and opposition party members.

Organizers said close to 7,000 turned up for the protest, which has been rare in Singapore.

Many came with umbrellas, braving the light drizzle in the afternoon. One of the banners reads, "Save Singapore -- Say No to 6.9 million," referring to a projection of the population in the city state by 2030.

Pictures provided by: Occupy Singapore

Pictures:

Videos: Population White Paper Protest, 16 Feb 2013

2013-02-17T13:57:00.001+08:00

At least 7,000 people have staged one of Singapore's largest-ever protests, a further sign of discontent over immigration policies and growing income disparities under the long-ruling People's Action Party (PAP). The large crowd braved a drizzle to gather at the Speakers' Corner (Hong Lim Park) in a rare protest against a government white paper on population growth.

The chief organiser of the rally, Gilbert Goh, said the protest on Saturday was a display of citizens' unhappiness over a population plan, which was endorsed in parliament on February 8.

List compiled by: Occupy Singapore

White Paper protest 2013;Ms Jeannette Chong & Vincent Wijeysingha speaks

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english/20130217_02.html

Letter from a Grassroots Leader to PM Lee

2013-02-15T13:45:00.002+08:00

Dear Prime Minister,

I am one of your grassroots leader. I’ve voluntereed and served in one of your constituency for the last 20 years. I’ve had these thoughts percolating in my mind for many months. With what I observed in the last 2 weeks, starting with the Punggol BE then the White Paper, I decided to take the risk and go ahead and send this letter to you. I hope you do not take
any of these the wrong way.

After the GE2011 elections, the PAP was dealt a big blow with the
unprecedented loss of a GRC. You did a post-mortem with us, and with your MPs. One of the message we tried to send you then was: You (meaning the PAP leadership) just didn’t listen to us. We told you there were many problems on the ground, you did not listen. After the GE, you said PAP will change.

The next challenge came in Hougang BE. You picked a great PAP candidate and for a while, we thought he could pull off a win. But against the advice of the candidate and the PAP grassroots, you deployed your big guns (KBW, TCH etc) and hijacked the message on the ground. You did not listen.

The Punggol BE decisive loss was unexpected. The PAP grassroots told you to send one of us, a grassroots type person, to the fight. You chose to parachute in an unknown, someone who just joined the party weeks ago. He commited gaffe after gaffe. You did not listen.

And right after the Punggol BE, you unveiled the White Paper.

I know that those close to you, including the mainstream media, are praising you for daring to take on the problems of the future, of not sweeping things aside. But let me tell you this : I think you, and your top leadership, screwed up big time.

I am sorry I have to use this language. You see, I’m a business leader too. I know what its like to be surrounded by people reporting to you, who are naturally disposed to tell you what you want to hear. Or are all molded in the same way. I am outside your – sorry to use this word, “bubble” – so from the outside, sometimes, I can see things a bit more clearly.

Virtually all your PAP grassroots leaders and members were taken aback by the White Paper. And it became obvious very quickly that so were all the PAP MPs. Seah Kian Peng said he’s skeptical about the White Paper and thought the targets should be scaled by to 80% (how's that different from WP's 5.9 million?). Jessica said that she, and a few other MPs, would not have been able to support the White Paper in its present form. Even Tin Pei Ling said she supported the amended proposition with a heavy heart.

Why didn’t you bother to run through the White Paper with your fellow MPs before you publicly released it? They could have told you how toxic the Paper came across and how to refine it. Why didn’t you do that?

In other words, once again, why didn’t you listen? Time and again, our team scored our own goals because of the sheer arrogance of the top leadership.

And look at how your top leaders handled the White Paper since its
roll-out. Within days, KBW started back-tracking saying 6.9 million was just a “worst case target, which we hope we never reach, that is for planning purposes only”. And you quickly followed suit, saying you agree. And the rest of the Ministers echoed the same language.

And then it was pointed out to you that in the past, PAP had also used the words “worst case target” or “planning purposes only”, only to have those numbers quickly exceeded.

And you actually got ESM Goh, Mah Bow Tan and Wong Kan Seng to speak in defence of the Paper? With MBT saying “lets go for the maximum”? Are you and your leadership team really that tone deaf? These are the very guys who are most associated with Singapore’s “lost decade” – a decade where we seemingly pursued GDP growth for its own sake, where the social fabric of Singapore was put under tremendous (and some say, irreversible) stress,
where you yourself said to have “lacked 20/20 vision” in infrastructure planning. And yet, you actually got these people to speak? Do you know what message you are sending – you are essentially thumbing your nose at Singaporeans and saying, “So?”.

I now know why MBT, WKS, VB, RL, etc did not show the slightest remorse over their egregious mistakes during their tenure. It is because you, the PM, set the tone at the top. You did not see these as any big deal, and that tone filtered through your entire organisation. In other words, you still do not listen.

On the very last day of the Parliament debate, you said that the population numbers for the future is for future generation to decide. Huh ???? What then have almost 60 MPs been debating these 5 days ? You put up a White Paper, you start back-tracking and now you think that just because you've muddied it up, its become palatable?

Why did you put the party through this? Did it have to be handled in such a – pardon my language again – incompetent way? And how do you think we, your faithful foot-soldiers, feel ? You put us in the difficult position of having to defend something we did not agree with. How do we answer to our family members and friends, who asked what are we fighting for, what's wrong with today's PAP leaders?

Let me tell you something honestly. The reason I, and some of my friends, volunteered was because we were grateful for what the Old PAP did for this country. We believed in its policies and its leadership. But in recent years, you and your team have gradually undermined this reservoir of goodwill and support. You know, I heard that in the Punggol BE, some PAP grassroots members actually told their family members to vote opposition, while they put up the show of canvassing for KPK’s support. In my heart, I also sometimes root for the other side, especially the WP. I know. I should not feel this way. But you guys just don’t listen.

Let me tell you something else too – I personally like you. And I think many Singaporeans do too. You gave a good speech in Parliament, just like you did in the last day of Punggol BE rally.

But you know – after I actually got over the emotional high from your speech, and think through about what you said, more doubts actually crept in.

“Growth is not for its own sake. But growth is not unimportant. If you are in the top 5, 10% of the population, you may say, well, I have enough, I can manage .. (but) if you are in the bottom 10, 20% of the population, ..it would be patronising for us to say growth is unimportant… Our experience has shown that in fact when the economy is growing, the low income Singaporeans get benefits, their incomes go up.”

Mr PM, do you know that in the last 10 years, the bottom 10% and 20% didn’t see their real income rise at all? If the last 10 years of growth, with 1 million increase in population, didn’t increase their income or make their lives better, how do you expect Singaporeans to believe you that the next 10 years of growth will be different? And Mr PM, did you realise that, until Lim Chong Yah came up with his radical proposal, even the top Union leader did not even realise that incomes of cleaners etc have not risen over the years, and didn’t realise they (the Union) have done nothing about it? In other words, they – the Union – was caught with their pants down (sorry to use this analogy, I know, Palmer-gate still hurts).

“Singaporeans, "feel together" as when the nation grieved with Mr and Mrs Francis Yap when their two sons, aged 13 and seven, were tragically killed in a Tampines accident last week. And when Singaporeans triumph, as Mr Nickson Fong, 43, did in winning an Oscar this year for a new animation technique, the country celebrates with him, said Mr Lee. .”

PM, Singaporeans did not feel together when Ma Chi crashed his Ferrari. It became a symbol of how Singapore threw its door open in wanton abandonment to the rich, and how they lived it up in Singapore. And Singaporeans feel divided, not united, when the China-imported table tennis team won medals in the London Olympics. It became a symbol of the "instant tree" mentality of the Govt. And I guess you now no longer cite the example of Feng Tian Wen as a unifying factor because she'd said bye-bye to Singapore and moved back to Beijing.

You see, Mr. PM, you cannot just quote examples in isolation, take us to an emotional high, and assume it assuage all of our raw wounds. Its almost like you are burying your head in the sand, when it comes to examples that do not fit with your idealised notion of how it should have been. We do not exist in that alternate reality. When I think through these parts of your
speech, I actually wonder if you are disconnected from us.

“He concluded with the promise that the Government will "watch the numbers" and make sure Singaporeans are clearly in the majority. It will always treat citizens better than non-citizens, he said”

Mr PM, you may not realise this, but in our public spaces – like the MRT, bus, Chinatown, Little India etc – we Singaporeans already no longer feel we are in the majority. My children tell me of attending classes in University, where Singaporeans are the minority and they feel they are in a foreign country. Do you realise that in some offices, large cliques of Filipinos or North Indians prevail, and they tend to hire their own? You see, you work in the Civil Service –when you look out of your office, everywhere you look, you see Singaporeans. It is not like that in many
other offices. How do you “watch the numbers” when you do not even have an accurate sense of the current ground reality?

“For Singapore to thrive, we Singaporeans must always stay lean and hungry," he said. "If we lose our drive, we will lose out."”

OK, I now get it. Its all about money isn’t it? You are afraid that
whatever counter-proposal anyone comes up with – whether it be reducing our reliance on foreign labor, or improving SME productivity, or reducing income inequality – you are afraid that it basically means touching the reserves.

But isn’t your proposal to give additional grants for children also raiding the reserves? And when KBW said that he (yes, not “we” but “he”) has decoupled BTO flat prices from the resale market by essentially increasing subsidies, isn’t he also – in the words of MBT – raiding the reserves?

“You said that 6.9 million is a worst case, and you see that the number for 2030 will be significantly below that. But that 6 million proposed by the WP will be too low and it will be higher than that. And that after this, you expect that the population will flatten out. The resident population is going to stabilise and the non-resident population will also eventually level off”

Mr PM, do you know what you just did? You, and your team, have made the argument strenuously that there is simply no way to grow the economy without population increase. And that as the population ages, we have to supplement with foreign labor.

And yet you are saying that between 2020 and 2030, this need will magically disappear. In other words, there is no intellectual coherence to your argument.

And do you know what this sounds like? You sound like someone who’s hooked on drugs or gambling. And he’s saying : just give me one last sniff, or just lend me another $100, and after that, I promise, I will not need it anymore.

And the worst part is this – nobody is going to believe you that 6.9
million is not real. Because come 2016, as long as the population increases from today’s 5.3 million to 5.6 million, the WP can easily say : See, the PAP is going along the trajectory in the White Paper. Ignore all their talk. Its already happening. If you vote PAP, you will have 6.9 million people.

In other words, you have fallen onto a trap that you dug yourself. How sad.

Let me end with the same words you used in your speech. You said you and your colleagues got into politics to improve the lives of Singaporeans. I do not doubt your sincerity. As I said at the very beginning, many Singaporeans like you and want to see you succeed, even though they disagree with your policies.

I am a grassroots leader. I’m spending time helping the PAP party because I believed that this will help Singapore and Singaporeans. I’m not paid for this. I’m doing it out of my own free will and with my sacrifice of time.

I’m rooting for you to pursue the right policies. I’m rooting for you to succeed.

But just like in GE2011, or Punggol BE, or in the recent White Paper – you do not listen.

At this rate, you will continue to erode the trust (yes, trust) and support of the people. Including people from the older generation who remembered and are eternally grateful to what LKY did for Singapore. In fact, the White Paper had turned out to be a big wake up call to Singaporeans - they better think twice about putting the PAP in such a dominant position in Parliament, if they want to maintain the Singapore they know.

So what do I want from you, other than “listen to us”? A hallmark of a successful, good leader is not his charisma, or his heart, or his
eloquence, or his intelligence. The starting point is always this – who is he listening to? Whose inputs do he value, whose has he learnt to discount?

Some of the lousiest emperors in China surrounded themselves with eunuchs who told the emperor what he wanted to hear. Some of the best, like Qian Long, disguised himself as a commoner to understand the true situation on the ground.

You do not have to listen to me. But find your own channels to listen to the ground. Seriously think again about who constitutes your inner circle.

But, listen, you must.

Yours sincerely,
Mr. Tan Ah Kow

Population White Paper: Companies need restructuring and rehabilitation, not more 'drugs'

2013-02-13T14:24:00.002+08:00

Nominated MP Laurence Lien

He also spoke about companies 'addicted' to cheap foreign labour.

Nominated MP Laurence Lien became the second nominated member of the Parliament to oppose Singapore Government's White Paper.

Here's an excerpt from His speech delivered on Thursday:

Let me suggest that the long term policy should be to cap the total population by 2030 at 6m. This will require only allowing roughly a 1% annual workforce growth between now and 2020 – which can be most achieved through an increase in resident labour force growth – and around 0.5% thereafter. We should also slowdown the intake of new naturalised citizens to 10,000-15,000 of new births. Otherwise, the impact on social cohesion and the building of our social identity will be too adverse.

In fact, having a lower workforce growth would have a positive impact on productivity. If labour is scarce, firms will substitute labour for capital, skills and technology.

We also need to raise the wages and skill levels of foreign workers so that we can attract the more skilled ones here. In fact, the rising foreign worker levies have ironically dampened productivity. Where companies have to reduce wages of foreign workers to cope with the painful escalating costs, they end up only being able to attract lower and lower skilled workers with a lower reservation wage, and who are less productive.

Too many of our companies are addicted to cheap, less-skilled foreign labour. If we continue to feed them with cheap labour, it will only feed the addiction. These companies need restructuring, or rehabilitation, not more drugs.

Full Speech:

Laurence Lien - Population White Paper Speech 2013 - (070213) by

Population Density is a Key Factor in Declining Human Fertility

2013-02-13T12:31:00.000+08:00

A study carried out by W. Lutz of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, M. R. Testa of the Vienna Institute of Demography at the Austrian Academy of Sciences and D. J. Penn of the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Ethology also at the Austrian Academy of Sciences, shows that ‘Population Density is a Key Factor in Declining Human Fertility‘.

Using fixed effects models on the time series of 145 countries and controlling for key social and economic variables, the 3 Austrian social scientists found a consistent and significant negative relationship between human fertility and population density. Moreover, they found that individual fertility preferences also decline with population density. These findings suggest that population density should be included as a variable in future studies of fertility determinants. These significant findings were published in 2007.

This study was also quoted by NSP in its alternative Population Plan for Singapore (‘NSP proposes alternative Population Plan for Singapore‘). NSP said:

“Looking at the data both internationally and domestically, it can be seen that when population density increases, fertility decreases. This is supported by independent research in Austria. Increasing Singapore population to 6.9 million by 2030 is therefore, likely to further depress Singapore’s fertility rate, creating a vicious cycle. There is a need to focus on improving Singapore’s fertility rate if we want to continue growing our economy with minimal social problems.”

The paper published by the study, said, “In many parts of Europe and some Asian countries, fertility rates have recently fallen to such low levels that the resultant rapid population ageing and shrinking already causes widespread concern. Various social, economic, political and bio-medical factors are associated with declines in birth rates but few social scientists have considered population density even though density has been shown to be a key determinant in many animal populations.”

In other words, even in the animal kingdom, population density does affect animal populations too.

It said, “If human fertility also depends on population density, this will have important implications for population projections…”

The paper said that population growth in the developing world is mainly due to high fertility rates combined with a very young age structure that results in increasing cohorts of women entering reproductive age. In Europe, by contrast, below-replacement fertility has resulted in an age structure with fewer children and therefore fewer women entering reproductive age in the future.

The paper also noted that a wide range of species — whether microbes, mussels, fruit flies or elephants — have been found to have density-dependent effects on survival and reproduction. Domestic animals have long been known to show reduced reproduction at high population densities and an increasing number of studies have found density-dependent reproduction in the wild. For example, reproduction has been observed to decline with increasing density in birds and mammals and experiments also show that reproduction can be density-dependent in the wild.

Food resource limitation is suspected to be an important mechanism behind density-dependent reproduction, although stress-induced endocrine changes from crowding are also known to curtail reproduction in primates and other mammals. It is not difficult to understand why such responses have evolved. When survival is density-dependent, density-dependent reproduction will provide a selective advantage.

Indeed, experimental studies on birds found that individuals adaptively adjust their number of offspring according to population density. There have been few studies that explicitly addressed the relationship between density and reproduction in humans, although they have generally found a significant negative relationship, even in very different settings. A systematic review of this relationship for historical rural societies also found significant negative elasticities. And yet, over the past two decades mainstream demographic analyses have generally ignored density as a possible determinant of human fertility.

In their search for an explanation for modern fertility declines, evolutionary demographers have focused on the fitness costs of reproduction, and whether low-fertility parents are trading offspring quantity for quality and ignoring density dependence.

To comprehensively assess the relationship between population density (i.e, population per total land area) and human fertility (i.e, number of births per woman), the Austrian scientists assembled a broad range of data, covering 159 countries since 1960.

Using mathematical analysis, the findings of the Austrian scientists imply that population density should be added to the list of the usual factors that are assumed to affect human fertility (i.e., education, women’s status, economic development, etc.). Density-dependence and the importance of these other factors are not mutually exclusive, and density may affect or interact with these other factors (e.g., women may gain more status at higher population densities).

The scientists also found that density is correlated with reduced fertility preferences, as well as actual outcomes, suggesting that it affects individual reproductive decisions. The scientists suggested that the personal perception of density (living space, availability of interpersonal communication, etc.) plays a role in this context. This idea is consistent with the ‘‘frontier effect,’’ which postulates that fertility preferences increase under low density.

Fertility preferences are expected to decline with increased costs of rearing children, such as child-care, housing, education, and trade-offs with economically productive work and these factors can increase with population density.

The paper concluded that a robust, negative association between fertility and population density has far reaching consequences, ranging from the projections of future regional fertility differentials to the way we model human population dynamics.

Singapore

So, what about the situation in Singapore? Looking at the population density and the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) of Singapore from 1975 to 2011, it also appears that there is a significant negative relationship between fertility and population density, as put forward by the paper.

Population density (people per sq. km) in Singapore [Link]:

TFR chart from NPTD’s Population White Paper:

In this regard, NPTD of the Prime Minister’s Office should take heed of such prestigious international studies linking population density to fertility rate. With the increase in population density in Singapore by bringing in another million more foreigners into the country in the next 17 years, our TFR would naturally fall further, according to this Austrian’s study.

Why I oppose the White Paper: Nicole Seah

2013-02-13T02:16:00.001+08:00

By: Nicole Seah

Along with many other Singaporeans, I oppose the White Paper.

I oppose the White Paper as a young Singaporean, who has no intention of giving up my citizenship or moving on to greener pastures because I want to stay and fix what is wrong with our country, so that we can be proud to pass on a better, more sustainable Singapore to future generations.

A Singapore that people can feel secure enough to call home, and feel confident to raise their children in.

Where the past, present and future can complement each other, rather than being a burden to economic progress.

A society that lives in harmony, rather than tense and overcrowded conditions.

Not the Singapore Inc. that has been aggressively forced down our throats the past few years – a Singapore which is in danger of becoming a transient state where people from all over, come, make their fortunes, and leave. A Singapore that has become a playground for the rich and the people who can afford it. A Singapore where the middle class is increasingly drowned out because they do not have the social clout or sufficient representatives in parliament to voice their concerns.

The paragraph above espouses rhetoric, a word that has become a filthy taboo that PAP MPs are attacking the opposition MPs for. Well, unless you’re talking about one of their own citing personal anecdotes like rich foreigners buying three properties, or trees that cannot grow properly if they are constantly uprooted. It’s okay when a PAP MP spouts rhetoric. It is ill-prepared of an opposition MP to do so. It is fluffy of them to do so.

This mudslinging in parliament, primarily over how the Worker’s Party has failed to provide a strong alternative, and the inherent smugness of the PAP is worrying.

Uneven playing field

Of course, it is easy for the PAP to slam the opposition on the quality of proposals that have been presented, whether these opposition parties have a presence in parliament or not. Apart from the length of time that the PAP has had in developing this paper, they also have an entire machinery of civil servants at their disposal churning out data which, apart from the topline information available on Singstats, is not available to the public.

With a Freedom of Information Act that is sorely lacking in this country, and with this comparative advantage that only elected officials in white have more access to such information than any other party, it is natural that they should have more facts at their fingertips to debunk any alternative proposal that the opposition puts up.

Is this fair?

No. It puts any opposition party elected into parliament in a tough spot. It’s akin to allowing competitors in only if they have a significant handicap. This attitude is selfish and counter-productive for policymaking in Singapore because it does not allow alternative proposals to be developed to the best of their ability, and for diverse proposals to flourish, which could help raise points or insights that may not have been earlier considered.

The question here is: Have sufficient diverse viewpoints been considered in the making of this White Paper? There may have been several focus groups conducted locally in constituencies, but is this sample size already skewed as their feedback may be more aligned with the ruling party? Have the views of the 39.9% who voted for the opposition in the last General Elections been considered too?

Overconfidence in predicting future

The PAP has presented a White Paper that looks too perfect to be true. It’s comprehensive, with clear graphs and data to show exactly what the consequences will be if we do not adhere to their policy recommendations, and a nicely predicted, positive outcome if the White Paper were to be implemented in full.

This over-confidence and certainty in prescribing future outcomes should not be comforting to people. Responsible leaders need to acknowledge that the world that we live in is a tumultuous one, and past data or historical events are not indicative of future trends.

For years the PAP has been telling us to do X, and it will result in Y. It all sounds very simple and linear, but we now know that they have been less than perfect in predicting outcomes. It’s nobody’s fault – after all, the world is changing at a speed that is impossible for us to predict trends as clearly as before. So, there is no need to act like we have all the answers. Even the PAP does not have all the answers, and they should not pretend to do so. Money can buy data, but it cannot predict the future.

What policymakers and leaders do need to establish, however, are the values by which they govern this country. The values we use to lead this country will cascade down into the mindsets of policymakers, and it will influence the way that they make decisions.

Just to be clear – Heart, Home, and Hope are not values. They should be the desired outcome of values.
The values of the White Paper currently appear to be – Money. GDP Growth. Corporations. Even the carrots dangled in front of us to start families are all centred around money and tangible rewards.
But is this the kind of Singapore we want? Have we really looked hard enough at cultivating an optimal balance between heartware and hardware? Or are we still fixated on an economic model that allows the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer?

Instead of continuing to paint a false picture of a comfort zone that we can take refuge in with the implementation of this White Paper, perhaps it is time for the state to stop mollycoddling its voters with the false promise of successful policies that can only happen with minimal confrontation of differences in ideas and opinions, because it allows the government to move ahead and make decisions that are right for its people.

The absence of soft culture

Singapore now needs time to grow into its own. Early on in the days of independence we’ve been whisked out of birthing pains out of necessity and quickly built into a first world nation in a short span of time. We are thankful to the old guard of the PAP for setting up this stage for us to flourish.
However, we will never truly mature as a society and as a country if we are not allowed the breathing space to grow. To grow our culture, to grow the things that matter, rather than to be caught up in a race of GDP growth numbers. The policies over the past decades have created an erosion of our social roots, widespread resentment, and a loss of who we are as Singaporeans. We have been taught to prioritise money-making practicality over what it means to have a solid culture. That is why we will find it difficult to have truly flourishing soft culture unless we can look beyond quantifying every scheme into a commercially viable one.

Soft culture sounds like a lofty proposition, but the truth is that developed economies around the world now are now being judged on their soft power influences and how they export their culture to the rest of the world. Soft culture also plays a part in determining how attractive a country is to the rest of the world. This is one area that we need to start focusing on in order to build a sustainable economy that goes beyond pure numbers and low-wage foreign labour.

Reality check: What if a prescriptive government is actually more detrimental than beneficial for its people? So apart from constantly doling out more monetary rewards and physical incentives to encourage a growth in TFR and sustain the population, perhaps it is also time for the government to take a step back and allow Singaporeans to find themselves and grow into their own. We need the space to organically build ourselves a strong Singaporean core before we should even talk about bringing more people in without diluting our identity and sense of belonging.

Speak up and be heard

The White Paper was developed with well-meaning intentions, but with deep-seated assumptions and a lack of openness to alternative ideas, it is difficult for many Singaporeans to endorse this White Paper as a reflection of the future that they want to see for this country. For many, the prospect of building a country primarily to serve economic needs and turn into a transient place for other seeking to use Singapore as a stepping stone is indeed a bitter pill to swallow.

To be clear, we are not by nature fear mongers, or doomsayers. We are all concerned because we’ve seen the destructive effects of similar policies over the past years, and with more of the same, the country is headed in a direction that understandably makes many of us uncomfortable, not just for ourselves, but for our children and the generations ahead of us.

The motion for the White Paper has already been passed in parliament, but I hope that we will not stop here and accept this silently. This is an opportune time to make our voices heard, and we can do so either by pushing for a National Referendum to demonstrate a representative view of what Singaporeans want for our future. We can and should also continue writing our thoughts on social platforms to make our opinions and ideals heard by as many of us as possible.

This is the time for us to stand up and make a difference for the beliefs that we hold dear to us. I hope we will not stand by the sidelines any longer.

Nicole Seah is a member of an opposition party in Singapore and was the youngest female candidate in the 2011 General Elections. She runs a community service project in the constituency of Marine Parade GRC, providing a support platform for children from lower income or dysfunctional family backgrounds. Nicole has also spoken at several conferences locally and internationally on issues pertaining to Singapore politics, social and youth issues in Asia and social media.

Abstention equates an endorsement of that policy

2013-02-09T15:09:00.002+08:00

Prof Eugene Tan, didn't you abstain from the White Paper? Your abstention equates an endorsement of that policy, no matter how much you railed against it. Your stance is almost equal to PAP's Mr Inderjit Singh who voiced opposition against it yet still voted for the document. You made yourself appear hypocritical don't you? If you've had deep reservations towards the white paper, the most prudent way to approach this from the standpoint of national interests is not to abstain but to vote against it!

The other NMPs who kindly voiced out against this white paper, you've done your part and we thank you. But this sad episode also shows that we truly need more elected opposition MPs to counter the PAP juggernaut. Otherwise beyond 2016, we true-blue Singaporeans will find ourselves substituted and doomed into extinction, notwithstanding all the flowery promises LHL had spewed out today in parliament. For the people? For Singapore and Singaporeans' future? I say it's more for PAP's future isn't it?

We can no longer expect the PAP to listen to us. It had passed this white paper without the decency to recognise the monumental impact on us all and the colossal stakes involved to hold a national referendum for us to decide. PAP still thinks it's doing the right thing and believed that nothing can stop it from doing so, at our expense.

Hence, come 2016, please all fellow true-blue Singaporean brothers and sisters, please let's band together to save ourselves because PAP will not save us. If not for your sake, at least for your future generation's sake. Do you want your children and grandchildren to pay the price for our continued folly in letting PAP run this country?

The ratio of Malays in Singapore will not change.

2013-02-09T04:40:00.003+08:00

By Andrea Ong

The ratio of Malays in Singapore will not change in the future even as the population grows, said Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in Parliament on Friday.

"The percentage of Malays will continue to be stable for the long term. We will not change it," said Mr Lee, speaking in Malay on the White Paper on population.

Several MPs had raised concerns that the shrinking Singaporean core put forth in the White Paper would lead to a smaller Malay-Muslim share of the population.

Mr Lee gave the reassurance that "we will continue to have the character of Singapore as a society", adding that the Government would take care of the interests of Singaporeans.

He urged the Malay-Muslim community to support the Government's population policies and said he hopes they will benefit from the recently enhanced marriage and parenthood measures. The Government will continue to look after those who need help and create more opportunities for all communities, said Mr Lee.

LIVE: Population Growth White Paper Debate

2013-02-08T16:40:00.002+08:00

Why the PAP lost so badly in the Punggol East by-election

2013-01-28T05:12:00.001+08:00

By Dr Wong Wee Nam

The results of the Punggol East by-election surprised everyone. People expected a very close fight. No one expected PAP, by its own standards, to be thrashed by such a wide margin. Even the professional forecasters who make a living offering odds thought that the PAP was going to win by 1000 votes.

What then went wrong?

When Michael Palmer resigned his seat, the Prime Minister saw no urgency to call for a by-election. He said that there were some national issues to be settled first. On hindsight, perhaps he should have stuck to this initial intention. Unfortunately he did not.

When the Singapore Democratic Party announced its intention to contest the by-election and made known the seriousness of this intention by going on walkabouts and house-to-house visits in impressive style, the PAP changed its mind.
With the SDP’s participation, the PAP probably thought that a 3-cornered fight would kill the opposition’s challenge and hand the PAP an easy victory. Thus, almost immediately after the SDP’s announcement, the by-election was called.

On paper, this is a great strategy — surprise the enemy, fight a battle quickly and attack when the enemy is not ready and in a state of disunity. Do not allow them time to cooperate. Sun Zi, author of The Art of War, would have been very proud of the PAP if not for some miscalculations.

The first miscalculation was to think that the opposition parties were not ready. Within 24 hours of the announcement of the by-election, the SDP, with the efficiency of an SAF recall, had already mobilized its members and supporters and started knocking on the doors. By the time it announced its pull-out, in the interest of opposition unity, it had covered almost the whole of Punggol East and saturated the voters with opposition messages.

Though the SDP did not contest in the end, it had contributed a lot to the opposition vote by giving the residents one round of opposition views. By pulling out, it had also allowed the Workers’ Party to go on an essentially one-to-one fight with the PAP. This was the PAP’s second miscalculation.

When the WP started their campaign, the ground was already softened by the SDP’s early start and by the time it finished their round of house-to-house visits, each household would have received 3 rounds of opposition calls to vote for the opposition (including the campaigns by SDA and Reform Party). With such a massive opposition call to an unhappy electorate, there is only one way the result would go. Though each party did their own thing, they collectively managed to unite the opposition supporters into one voice to send a clear message to let the government know of their unhappiness.

Fighting a war is not just a matter of surprise, speed and disarray in your opponents. It is also about having an experienced general who can lead his men into battle. It is also about the morale and preparedness of your generals and foot soldiers. In spite of the PAP’s reputation for efficiency and a well-oiled machinery, it failed on these counts.

In the past, when the PAP eyes a potential candidate, the least it would do is to let the person understudy a more seasoned MP. This did not seem to be so in the case of Dr Koh Poh Koon. He seemed unprepared and was not keen to contest when he was first asked. Having joined the PAP for only a month, there was definitely inadequate time to prepare him for any election, let alone a snap by-election.
As it turned out, his inexperience showed up glaringly. Some of the bloopers he made would not have been made by a more seasoned campaigner and that probably caused him votes. Imagine telling voters about his alleged abject poverty and then telling them not to give sympathy votes.

It is hard to think that a child of his era, when Singapore was prospering and the PAP was promising the Swiss Standard of Living, would have such deprivation as lack of chopsticks and food. It could happen only with great income disparity and without the policy of a minimum wage. Isn’t it then more logical for a person who has experienced such childhood poverty to join a party like the SDP instead of the PAP?
After all the talk about his humble background, Dr Koh then made a slip of his tongue and said that everybody in Singapore drives a car. Voters must be wondering if the potential office holder is out of touch with reality with such elitist thinking.

The PAP has the practice of parachuting well-qualified people as candidates for elections. In the past things worked out well because these people were sent in way before an election. This gave the person ample time to get to know the grassroots members and to bond with them. In this way, any misgiving of any member towards the candidate initially could be ironed out with time.

In Dr Koh’s case, he had only two weeks. This is too short a time to adjust to supporters who are still mourning the departure of their previous MP. Any newly-appointed football manager knows he needs time before he can get his team to fight for him and achieve peak performance. Thus, without the fire, it is not possible for soldiers to fight a good battle.

The PAP had called for a snap by-election because it wanted to catch the opposition parties off-guard. The parties would not have time to prepare and would fight amongst themselves. Instead, as it turned out, it was the PAP itself that needed more time.

Why PAP lost again

2013-01-27T22:54:00.005+08:00

It looks like PAP has not learned from the lessons of 2011 GE.

LTK is right. The PAP of old is not the PAP of today. George Yeo made a very good comment that when an organisation get going for many years, the rot starts to set in and what they do not "realise" will set its doom. He wanted to be the "reformist" voice inside the Party but unfortunately he got booted out.

In the sixties up to the early eighties, PAP has a very strong dedicated grassroot base whose support begin from ordinary folks in the mass anti-colonial movement. In the early days, PAP filled many ordinary folks with just simple education backgrounds to be candidates. Later the Barisan Socialis made a critical mistake when it withdrew from running in the elections and so gave PAP a free hand. PAP responded by running country with excellent economic policies that uplifted the people's standard of living. With a strong grassroot base, it continued to enjoy continuous support from the populace.

The second phase began in the late seventies when LKY started to raise candidates of technocratic calibre rather than from its grassroots. It needed folks with experience in running the government. These are folks from civil service, military and private sector. These candidates get parachuted into constituencies and yet they won. I think in this phase, the strong grassroots base, though somewhat disgruntled, continued to back PAP. Despite lacking experience in grassroots, the technocratic candidates prevailed even if they do not spend time tilling the ground. This was the policy that followed up to this date, and PAP continued to win elections.

Soon the cracks appeared. PAP lost Anson and Potong Pasir even with their so-called high-calibre candidates. PAP came up with the GRC policy and used to so-called bait of estate upgrading and this sustained PAP. In the process, something happened in the grassroots base. The older generation gradually passed on in life and now we have a different grassroot base in the RCs, People Association and CCCs etec. The present cadre base in PAP have very little experience in tilling the ground at all. They are just successful elitist folks in their careers.

In the nineties up to now, PAP had still not realised that its grassroots no longer function as an efficient feedback base and the folks lack the fire and conviction of those in the fifties and sixtie which began as a fight against colonial authorities. I once went to a Meet-the-MP session and curiously asked the fellow why he volunteered. From the conversation, I realised that this young man joined to help the MP so as to increase his networking which can help in his career. What a discovery! I was told RC members get privileges in housing and carpark allocation, and some even did for such petty stuff. I recounted an experience of my friend who was so disgusted with his RC, who organise the welcoming ceremonies for constituency events to curry favour with their MP. The MP made his usual appearance in constituency event, garlanded and made his usual speech. He absolutely is "clueless" about his constituency and note that the MP has a full time job, and he relied on these folks to carry out his job. I reckoned PAP MPs got carried away with this practice, and they do not really interact with the residents extensively. That is even worst for those who are ministers whose portfolios just do not allow them to interact with their constituency members.

All these while, Worker Party moved towards being a genuine grassroot movement under LTK. He started wisely with Hougang and made efforts to engage the local residents. He raised teams of grassroot members who have a conviction to fight against PAP. Back in those days, the Opposition parties are so ridiculed that it take tremendous convictions to stand up to support and be politicking members. So you have this trend when PAP grassroot members are progressively filled up of folks with self interest and opposition ones who spend time extensively on the ground to canvass.

What Sylvia Lim said in one rally was telling. She said that prior 2011 GE, she and her team spend many days trolling the constituency to gather support. It was to follow LTK's simple strategy. Win the ground and you have a chance. KPK and his likes, did not do such stuff. When it was time for Sylvia to canvas in the GE, the folks in Aljunied already have seen her. KPK - he just turned up in Punggol ..if he had done years of extensive canvassing prior to Punggol, things would have been different.

Notice the difference between WP and PAP's decisions in this by election. PAP continued to parachute a candidate who joined last-minute while WP stayed the ground and sent the same person into the election. This was the REAL difference.

KPK was not from grassroots, had no experience in grassroot politics and performed poorly as a candidate. The most important attributes of a politician are to be likeable, politically knowledgeable and portray genuineness in helping people. KPK failed in all these counts primarily I reckon he had no experience in grassroots at all. He could not even answer simple political queries and seeked to evade them. He appeared clueless and lacking convictions. He could not convey the empathy needed of a politician. If you look at Tan Cheng Bock, this guy is somebody! He was somebody who had been a doctor in village, and he continued to relate to the ordinary folks genuinely as a politician. He continued to garner increasing popular support from his constituency. If you do good and relate, your reputation will spread.

In this age, KPK received no help from his grassroot backers as I reckoned they are not the ones who are genuinely into politics to further PAP's interest. They are a dysfunctional group lacking convictions and have no ideas of the ground. Rivervale plaza's problems was there all the while, and nobody did anything until PAP had to fight a by-election. This is telling! PAP grassroots in Punggol did not feedback upwards of the urgent problem of Rivervale at all.

From 2011 elections, PAP should have learned its mistakes. It did not. Why? I think this have to do with the folks now running the government have very little experience in learning politics from the ground. For example,TCH was parachuted into PAP from being a career soldier in SAF. None spend their initial years tilling the ground unlike what you are seeing in Worker Party ...

KPK was thoroughly "exposed" in this by-election. Sammyboy forummers did an excellent expose, see below:

http://bit.ly/XEov0D

http://bit.ly/X3zbYg

http://bit.ly/UuGs4Q

The decision to field KPK and an ill-conceived attempt to present him as a "grassroot folk" of Punggol which he was not, seriously undermined PAP. If you are genuinely from the ground, it will show. KPK had nil experience, and it also showed. If he has empathy for the ordinary fellow, he was not experienced enough to convey it. PAP, for what it is, just make very bad mistakes and so out of sync. This BE was supposed to close, and it was not even close. WP won by a large margin with a weak candidate in Lee Li Lian, whose CV was not comparable to KPK.

PAP, I think they will read this sentiment here, and I reckon they will change. Will they? We will see in the next elections. They have to make a decision to gather candidates with calibre but also with fire and convictions. They have to revamp their grassroot base, and seriously ask themselves what does PAP stand for? It is just for materialistic gains? In all and all, PAP needs issues that can galvanise their base plus a strong motivational leadership. Its current leadership is lacking in my view. Thoroughly of technocratic calibre, and lacking political charisma and convictions, no wonder PAP lost even to a terribly weak candidate from the opposition.

Workers Party wins Punggol East SMC

2013-01-27T01:02:00.002+08:00

Workers’ Party candidate Lee Li Lian won the Punggol East by-election handsomely at the second time of asking.

Returning Officer Yam Ah Mee announced the results a short time ago at North Vista Secondary School in Punggol East.

The vote share of the candidates in the four-cornered fight is as follows:

Ms Lee Li Lian (WP): 16,038 votes
Dr Koh Poh Koon (PAP): 12,856 votes
Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam (Reform Party): 353 votes
Mr Desmond Lim (Singapore Democratic Alliance): 168 votes

The results marks a significant swing against the PAP since the General Election in 2011. Two years ago, former Speaker of Parliament Michael Palmer won the seat with 54.54 per cent of the vote.

Ms Lee’s vote share tonight improved from 41 per cent then, as concerns from opposition supporters that a multi-cornered fight might dilute the anti-PAP vote proved unfounded.

Both Mr Lim and Mr Jeyaretnam did not get enough votes to retain their $14,500 election deposit. They each needed to secure at least 12.5 per cent of the valid votes.

The win shifts the balance in Parliament slightly. The PAP now has 80 seats while the WP has seven.

For some, the WP victory today had been on the cards since the seat became vacant after the disgraceful exit of former Speaker Michael Palmer last month.

Lingering unhappiness over issues like immigration and transport continue to plague the Government and the major policy announcements over the past few weeks clearly did not sway public opinion.

The WP also seems to have picked up momentum since their historic win in Aljunied GRC two years ago and it is clear that a desire for a strong opposition voice is a tide that might prove difficult for the PAP to reverse.

Both the WP and the PAP are expected to hold press conferences shortly.

#PunggolEast By-Election Results Night

2013-01-26T16:43:00.001+08:00

Vote for WP, Punggol East!

2013-01-25T00:12:00.002+08:00

In May 2011, the Patriarch of the PAP, Lee Kuan Yew, issued a threat to voters of Aljunied:

"If Aljunied decides to go that way, well Aljunied has five years to live and repent. We accept the verdict of the people, but they must also accept the consequences of their actions. You must expect the PAP to look after PAP constituencies first."

"The only way people learn", he added, "is when they have to pay a price. From time to time we may lose, and the voters pay the price."

72,165 or 54.71% of voters in Aljunied rejected the threat, chose freedom from fear, and took a decisive first step towards making Singapore a genuine pluralistic democracy.

Today, with only 6 members in the Parliament, the non-PAP parties remain a weak force, their voice neutered by the constant barrage of unfavourable propaganda and skewed reporting by the mainstream media, the bullying by quasi-government agencies like PA, and antics of PAP-controlled companies like AIM Pte Ltd.

The PAP also promised to change but has done little to demonstrate that. The year has barely started and already at least three lawsuit threats have been issued to critics of the PAP.

Worse, LKY's threats resurfaced last week in the words of one newbie who has never walked the ground or been in politics before until this By Election.

In his walkabout that violated the campaigning rules of the Parliamentary Elections Act, the PAP candidate Koh Poh Koon issued the veiled threat to Punggol voters:

"I think it’s a fallacy to believe that you can have the best of both worlds – choose the person to make a statement but hope that the other person who’s voted out is going to be having all the resources, all the authority, to get the work done for you.

It is baffling for Koh to cite that the PAP candidate who is voted out may not have all the resources. In fact, invariably, the losing PAP candidate is always appointed the Grassroots Advisor under the auspice of the PA which in turn sets the rules on what can or cannot be done in the estate. Even issues like estate upgrading requires the Advisor's approval whose words ironically carry more weight than that of the elected MP.

The inability to "get the work done" for the PAP hence is really a matter of will, not a matter of resource constraints.

To cut to the chase, therefore, what Koh was saying is: do not expect the PAP to step in to continue to help you should you vote for the Opposition.

So Punggol East residents, Koh is effectively saying: if you vote in WP, SDA or RP, you will have 4 years to repent and regret.

It is time now for you to stand up for all Singaporeans who pay tax and who reject the PAP's practice of using our own money to hold us hostage.

Stand up and be counted.

Stand up with Aljunied.

Stand up for Singaporeans and a just and fair Singapore.

Vote for WP, Vote for Lee Li Lian

2013-01-24T23:05:00.001+08:00

Workers' Party 3rd and final rally aftermath

2013-01-24T05:54:00.001+08:00

The cheering of the 10k supporters that lasted more than 30 minutes even after the rally ended. The electrifying atmosphere of the democracy determined citizens of Singapore!

WP Rally Speeches - 23 Jan 2013

2013-01-23T22:21:00.002+08:00

Daniel Goh

Low Thia Khiang, MP (English)

Pritam Singh, MP

Lee Li Lian (English)

Low Thia Khiang, MP (Mandarin)

Lee Li Lian (Mandarin)

Sylvia Lim, MP

Png Eng Huat, MP

Chen Show Mao, MP

Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap, MP

Frieda Chan

Yee Jenn Jong, NCMP

L. Somasundaram

Lim Ee Ping

LIVE VIDEO: Watch WP Rally

2013-01-23T20:46:00.002+08:00

Show ended.

WP Rally Pictures - 22 Jan 2013

2013-01-22T22:51:00.001+08:00

People coming in their working attire, didn't want to brave the mud, hence after ALL the planks were fully occupied, the late crowd spilled over to other areas without muddy grass.

Video: