PAPtalk

The PAP Parrot speaks again

2006-05-17T07:56:00.000+08:00

Have you noticed the PAP Parrot speaking again?

This time, he comes in the form of Mr Eric Low the defeated candidate in Hougang.

Asked about what he thought of the election results, he said residents were worried about the PAP winning all 84 seats. "Hougang voters may not have rejected what I did for them at a local level, but they did not want the PAP to win all wards."

Besides, he added, "Mr Low Thia Khiang was the leader of a fairly credible team this time round, and he contested on a platform of national issues."

Hmmm.... didn't the PM and the SM say exactly the same things just a few days ago?

I told you so... the PAP is made up of men and women who only parrot what their bosses say.

Where is their independence of thought and views?

Inflexible PAP government

2006-05-15T08:00:00.000+08:00

All Singaporeans have had experiences of how inflexible the PAP government can be. But this story about a violin protege really takes the cake!

Schoolboy violinist Ike See is 17. He has obtained six music diplomas, all with distinctions and was the National Violin Champion in three categories.

Ike has been awarded a scholarship worth about US$28,500 a year at Curtis Institute of Music, one of the top music colleges in the USA. But Mindef says he must do his national service first. That's two years when he could have been groomed to be one of Singapore's top violinists!

Mindef says it is acting on the principle of universal equality!

I say that is balderdash! Rubbish!

What equality is Mindef and the PAP talking about when we can see with our eyes that there is no equality in Singapore. The PAP treats Opposition wards unequally with PAP wards.

You call that universal equality?

I say to Mindef: Don't ruin a boy's future career just because you have such inflexible rules and regulations. Give that boy a chance.

It's good for Singapore, especially when we are talking about being a more creative society.

Wake up, Mindef. Get some culture!

Remember George Yeo's words in five years!

2006-05-15T07:47:00.000+08:00

"Many Singaporeans would not want an outcome where the PAP won all 84 seats. They don't think it's healthy. In fact, I share that view too. It wouldn't be healthy."

Singaporeans must remember what the Foreign Minister BG George Yeo says at the next election. The minister gave his views to journalists after touring Aljunied GRC to express his and his team's appreciation for winning the constituency against the Workers' Party.

PAP'S EXCELLENT REARVIEW VISION!
But his view is typical of the PAP. They have EXCELLENT hindsight; they can make commonsense pronouncements only AFTER the fact. During the elections, we have seen how the PAP makes judgments, criticisms, allegations and comments that are laughable. I am sure they know it, but insist they are right.

After the fight is all over, then they begin to make better sense. Like George Yeo.

Here's what he said yesterday about the Gomez affair: "When we went around, people had already formed a judgment about the Gomez affair but they felt that we had given it too much emphasis and that it became too dominant an issue. In hindsight, this was the case. But at the time when we were involved in the argument, many people were not sure and it was important to have clarity."

SM Goh Chok Tong, too, has great hindsight. Atter Mr Chiam See Tong won Potong Pasir, he said he deserved to win.

The PM is in the same boat. He has said that Hougang MP Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam were good men who worked hard!

Lesson for Singaporeans: Don't believe it when the PAP keeps blasting away at the Opposition. Much of what they say may not be true after all!

Ex-PAP MP in court: what happened to its wonderful psychoanalytical tests?

2006-05-11T10:00:00.000+08:00

A former PAP MP of Hong Kah GRC has been hauled before the court over an accusation of professional misconduct in a property case.

Ahmad Khalis Abdul Ghani was found guilty of making a false declaration in a legal document, by a four-man disciplinary committee of the Law Society.

But this story raises more questions than it answers.

First of all, why was this case brought before court only AFTER the elections?

Secondly, why wasn't it reported in The Straits Times before or during the GE.

Thirdly, it gives the lie to the PAP's much-touted screening of candidates.

The PAP always insists that its psychoanalytical tests can weed out unscrupulous people before they are selected to stand as candidates in elections.

MM Lee Kuan Yew, while commenting on the James Gomez case during the elections, boasted about this system, saying people such as James Gomez would have been found out long before he could be nominated.

But here is another example that his wonderful and cherished system has failed. Yet again.

We all know of the numerous cases of PAP ministers and MPs who have been caught short. So we tell the PAP to its face: Get off your moral high horse! Stop talking about defects in other parties when you have your own! You are just as bad as the others!

Let's make a list of HDB estates that have been upgraded! Let's show where the PAP has gone badly wrong!

2006-05-10T15:18:00.000+08:00

Dear Singapore citizens

Let's make the PAP accountable. Its leaders keep saying they want to be more open and transparent in its dealings with us. But no one knows exactly what criteria the HDB uses to determine which estates need upgrading.

It does not have a publicly available and/or published list that shows when and where the upgrading will be done, how much it will cost and numerous other things. How can this be called an open and transparent government and one that wants to work with Singaporeans?

So I urge all those living in HDB estates to contribute to this list. Let's list every HDB estate that has been upgraded. Please send an email to me (morepap@yahoo.co.uk) or click on "comment" at the bottom of this blog and I will compile them into a table on this blog.

Please give me the following information:

1. Name of HDB estate, in particular the block numbers or neighbourhoods
2. What kind of upgrading works have been done
3. When was this done
4. What do residents have to pay

Let's make this list as accurate as possible. Please do not give false information because then the PAP will make this the subject of mockery! For the sake of every Singaporean, please contribute to this list. Please ask all your friends to visit this blog and add to the list.

Thank you very much...

MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD IN THE CORRIDORS OF POWER!

2006-05-09T08:02:00.000+08:00

GET ALL YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS, RELATIVES, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES TO SIGN THE PETITION.

GO TO: http://www.petitiononline.com/no2pap1/petition.html

Send this petition to the Prime Minister

2006-05-08T18:15:00.000+08:00

Dear Singaporeans

The PAP has insisted that it will continue with the policy of giving priority to PAP wards when it comes to upgrading.

We say this is not a just, fair and good policy and call upon the Prime Minister to revoke it.

Several people have suggested that we start an online petition to the Prime Minister to revoke this policy. This blogger has started that petition.

Please go to: http://www.petitiononline.com/no2pap1/petition.html and make your voices heard.

Get as many of your friends as possible to sign the petition.

We need at least 10,000 signatories to make this effective.

MAJULAH SINGAPURA!!!

THIS IS THE PETITION WHICH YOU WILL SEE ONLINE:

Dear Prime Minister

Much has been said about uniting Singaporeans of every creed, colour, race and religion after the elections. You and your ministers have said that we are all Singaporeans no matter who we voted for.

We share a common destiny. We share in our failures and in our successes.

Like you, we wish to see Singapore succeed in every good and proper and honourable endeavour. We wish to see our country become a beacon of light for the world to see. We want to show the world that we are a just, fair and open society, not just say we are.

However, we feel that the PAP policy of giving priority to PAP constituencies in the matter of upgrading of HDB estates, is an extremely divisive one. How can my fellow Singaporean, my colleague, my friend or my family members who live in an Opposition ward be denied the same privileges that I have in my constituency?

If we take this policy to its logical conclusion, then we must apply it across the board, and the result will be disastrous.

Upgrading of HDB estates is done with public money, and therefore should be applied fairly and equally for ALL Singaporeans, not just those living in PAP constituencies.

Upgrading should be prioritised according to needs, not according to whether a certain area has voted for a particular political party.

We therefore strongly urge you to revoke this policy for the good of our nation.

If you want every Singaporean to pull together in good times and bad, in success and in failure, then the only right thing to do is to treat each of us fairly, justly and equitably.

A nation divided and disunited by such policies will surely disintegrate. Surely you do not wish to see that, Mr Prime Minister?

Majulah Singapura!

Help publicise this site! Please email all your friends about it! This is the only way we can put pressure on the PAP government.

2006-05-08T18:05:00.000+08:00

PAP: Still all talk, no action!

2006-05-08T17:20:00.000+08:00

It is with great disappointment that the Prime Minister is still defending the PAP-first policy for upgrading. The day the GE results were known, Mr Lee said we should all unite and move forward, and that Opposition-voting Singaporeans were still pro-Singapore.

But today, he said the policy of upgrading will remain. "Surely the PAP (constituency) cannot be put second. And that's been settled, it's not really been argued or emphasised or re-highlighted but it remains a policy."

How can this be, Mr Lee? How can a policy that divides Singaporeans based on his or her political leanings be considered a just, fair and good policy?

Surely upgrading must be based on needs. Older estates must get priority, just as we replace old for new in our buying habits. There absolutely cannot be priority for PAP wards because, as you yourself said, everyone is a Singaporean!

If you continue to insist on the PAP policy, then we Singaporeans must conclude that your call for an honest, open society is just a lot of hogwash. You must therefore be considered the Prime Minister of only 66.6 per cent of Singaporeans, and not the rest.

If you take your policy to its logical conclusion, then residents of Ang Mo Kio GRC who voted for the Opposition simply cannot seek help from PAP MPs.

How can we work together as Singaporeans when policies such as PAP-first divide us? We call on you once again to remove this policy at once.

Scare-mongering MM. Again!

2006-05-08T17:10:00.000+08:00

MM Lee Kuan Yew thinks his old ways of scaring Singaporeans will work with the new generation of voters. I'm sorry to tell him he is wrong.

He told residents of Tanjong Pagar that without a strong government, Singapore would not be able to face up to external challenges, such as the rise of China and India, or a sudden spike in oil prices sparked by a crisis over Iran.

He also insisted that big businesses would not invest in Singapore.

Mr Lee, you need to be more convincing. You may be able to fool the older generation of voters, most of whom were not as well-educated. But who are you trying to kid?

Look at China today. Why is everyone flocking there despite the fact that it is a communist country with rules that are far from being conducive to business?

Google has even censored its site to appease the Chinese. All the big businesses are there despite massive corruption.

You yourself got enticed by the Chinese to invest our billions in Suzhou Industrial Park and failed miserably because you do not know how to handle people smarter and more cunning than you!

Why do businesses go to China or anywhere else? Because they know they can make money.

And what is a strong government, anyway?
Only a PAP one? What crap! So a country with a strong opposition is not a strong country? Come on, Mr Lee, try to be more convincing.

Time to work together!

2006-05-07T16:26:00.000+08:00

It's all over. PAP 82, Opposition 2. It's now time to sit back quietly and reflect on the issues facing all Singaporeans, across all party lines, with a view to the next GE. Let's take stock of all that has happened in the past nine days and see what needs to be done.

LET'S GALVANISE ALL SINGAPOREANS
One of the best things that The Straits Times has said in all the electioneering is its editorial on Saturday morning that great leaders galvanise the people.

I urge the PAP leaders, in particular the PM, to do so, and the only way to do so is to show impartiality to all Singaporeans, Opposition voters or PAP voters. This is the only way forward. This is the only way to earn the respect of ALL Singaporeans. Division and disunity are the death knell of a nation, no matter how strong it may be today.

UPGRADING FOR ALL
The PAP policy of providing upgrading to PAP wards is the most divisive and nastiest piece of PAP policy ever. This is completely unacceptable.

In fact, it may not even be constitutional. The Singapore constitution guarantees equality for everyone, and if the PAP insists on continuing this, I would urge the Opposition to test the constitutionality of such a policy in the High Court.

Singaporeans' money must be used for all Singaporeans, regardless of creed (politics and whatever else), colour, race and religion.

The PAP must repeal its policy now, and immediately upgrade the Opposition wards, which it should have done years ago. These constituencies have now lagged far, far behind others and therefore now deserve priority.

Furthermore, the National Development Minister Mr Mah Bow Tan, and SM Goh have both promised $100 million and $80 million packages for Hougang and Potong Pasir respectively. Please keep your word if you are men of honour and integrity which we know you are.

DISMANTLE THE FIVE- AND SIX-MEMBER GRCs
The GRCs were formed with ONE objective: to ensure seats for minority candidates. We fully support this, but the GRC concept has been manipulated so that they make it more and more difficult for the Opposition.

If the PAP were dead serious about ensuring more minority candidates, it should create more three-member GRCs instead of bigger ones (see article, GRCs' purpose debunked by PAP itself, below).

But more importantly, the bigger GRCs can backfire on the PAP. Given the fact that the PAP's share of the popular vote is about 60 to 65 per cent, there will surely come a time when one or even two GRCs with Opposition parties will beat the PAP.

In one fell swoop, the PAP could suddenly face 10 to 15 Opposition MPs in Parliament.

NO DIRTY POLITICS FROM NOW ON, PLEASE
It is amazing to now hear nice words from the PAP, especially about the Opposition. For example, the PM said: "I want also to continue to encourage open debate on issues because neither the PAP nor the government nor the opposition has all the solutions and answers to problems. But we have enormous talents in Singaporeans. And each has something important to contribute. We should tap and engage this for the good of Singapore."

Rightly said. But during the campaigning, this was never uttered. In fact, it was the contrary, that the Opposition had absolutely nothing to offer, their programmes and ideas were rubbish and their candidates not worthy of representing Singaporeans.

Here's what SM Goh said about Mr Chiam See Tong: "He has put in 22 years of hard work and I was worried if he had to go out defeated, it would be very bad for him. I'm happy for him in a personal way, because I know, having served here for some 20 years, if in one of my elections I were defeated, I think it would be terrible."

We said during the campaigning that Mr Goh is a decent man. But during the campaigning, he made some remarks about Mr Chiam, which were most unworthy of such a man.

I therefore urge the PAP and Opposition parties, particularly the SDA and WP to put aside all malice and work for the common good of Singaporeans.

Furthermore, I say to all the parties that they should refrain from dirty politics such as the PAP has shown and be honest to Singaporeans in future. Let's give credit where credit is due, especially to Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong.

Honest men and women need not bash a fellow Singaporean so he/she can be No. 1. That's not how we, and especially politicians and leaders, should conduct ourselves because it sets a very bad example to all young Singaporeans and bespeaks ill of leaders.

There are many other issues that need to be addressed, but we will leave that to later when the dust has fully settled. Meanwhile, good luck, Singaporeans.

PAP wants a rubber-stamp Parliament

2006-05-06T08:23:00.000+08:00

HERE'S JUST ONE MORE BLOG BEFORE YOU VOTE. And this is very important to show you how the PAP will act in the next five years if you give them a strong mandate today. It will change the laws to suit itself.

Yesterday, in his last visit to Potong Pasir, Mr Goh Chok Tong asked: "How many more (Opposition voices) do you want (in Parliament), you tell me. If you say 10, and thereafter you are always going to vote in the PAP with 84 seats, I'll do a deal with you."

This is exactly what the PAP is about – change the laws anytime it wants because it knows it can do that with a Parliament that merely rubber stamps what party leaders decide.

Realising he had made an error, he quickly said he could not do that. But Mr Goh's remarks and the PM's remark about fixing the Opposition reveal exactly what the PAP is about - fix the Opposition, push through laws and regulations with ease.

As a famous quote says: "Out of the heart proceeds the issues of life." This means people will only say things that they have done, or are about or have thought about.

So I urge you: Don't trust the PAP 100 per cent. Give your votes to the Workers' Party in Aljunied, Hougang, Ang Mo Kio and East Coast, and to Mr Chiam See Tong at Potong Pasir. This will wake the PAP up so that they will FINALLY, FINALLY, FINALLY listen to the people. Don't you want that?

A few thoughts before you pick your MPs

2006-05-05T18:37:00.000+08:00

In a few more hours Singaporeans go to the polls. It is an important day. In fact, it could be the Most Important Day in your life! It could be the day that Singapore changes forever.

Before you put a cross against the names of candidates you want to represent you, here are a few thoughts you ought to consider.

DO YOU WANT YOUR FREEDOM OF CHOICE TAKEN AWAY?
The PAP is hell bent on restricting the freedom of Singaporeans. Today you have freedom to choose the kind of hospital ward you want to stay in should you be hospitalised.

The PAP wants to take that away by introducing means-testing for C-class wards with the lame excuse that it is to help those poorer sections of Singapore society.

DO YOU WANT TO PAY MORE IN MEDICAL BILLS, TRANSPORTATION, AND POSSIBLY OTHER THINGS?
An MRT fare rise is on the cards in August when the Public Transport Council makes a decision. That's even though SMRT made $103.6 million in the 2006 financial year!

Medical bills are not going to come down with means-testing, but the only way is UP. The PAP won't guarantee that the GST will not be increased within the next five years, which the SDA has asked for.

What else have the PAP got in mind? They won't tell you. They won't be frank and open and honest, although the PM keeps saying they will. Is this the kind of First World government Singapore deserves?

ARE YOU ALL SINGAPOREANS OF EQUAL STATUS WITH EQUAL RIGHTS?
The PAP does not think so. If your brother or sister lives in an Opposition ward, he/she is deemed not to be an equal Singaporean with equal rights because he/she is not getting access to government funds for community projects. These are funds which ultimately belong to every Singaporean. It's too bad, but the rule applies even if your brother or sister voted for the PAP! Is that being fair and equitable to every Singaporean?

Imagine how far they will go in applying this rule if the PAP wins all the seats in Parliament!

CAN YOU TRUST THE PAP 100 PER CENT?
You have seen evidence of how the PM's hand-picked candidate, Inderjit – or rather, Inderback-stabbing – Singh betrayed his old friend James Gomez and consultant Andrew Kuan (see post below). The PAP has refused to disassociate from a man with such a major character flaw. He is going to meet residents of AMK GRC at meet-the-people's sessions. Can you trust such a man? Can you trust the PM's judgment? Who else in the PAP are likely to betray your trust?

DO YOU WANT MORE 'YES' MEN AND WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT?
The PAP keeps saying that it is far better to have its MPs question its policies rather than the Opposition. But take a look at the actions of all its MPs. Whenever there is a vote for a bill, every PAP has to line up with the party. Every piece of legislation introduced by the PAP is passed without any of its MP saying no to it. MPs such as Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Mr Tan Soo Khoon may make a lot of sound and fury but ultimately, they become just another Yes man. I do not believe any of them has voted against his or her own party in all the years I have observed Singapore politics.

DO YOU WANT MORE PARROTS TO REPRESENT YOU?
You would have noticed by now that PAP MPs are extremely short of their own views. Whatever the party gives as the reason for doing something is always parroted wholesale by its MPs. They don't seem to have independent thoughts and views. What is the use of such men and women?

CAN YOU TRUST THE PM?
He blatantly tells Singaporeans he will fix the Opposition. He blatantly insults you by saying you can be bought over. He apologises (not personally but through his press secretary) for the first, but ignores the second. Which must mean he really thinks you can be bought over.

He tells you he cannot cope with 10, 20 Opposition MPs in Parliament. He has shown an error of judgment in a person's character by hand-picking people such as Inderback-stabbing Singh to run with him in Ang Mo Kio GRC.

The question is: Do you want such a man to be Prime Minister? Can he handle bigger things when he obviously can't cope with small ones?

HOW MANY MORE WORKERS WILL THE NTUC ALLOW TO BE RETRENCHED?
The unions are supposed to champion workers' rights. But the evil tripartism entrenched into the Singapore political system is prepared to sell workers down the river. How many more Singapore workers will lose their jobs after the elections? How many more will struggle to feed their families while PAP ministers laugh all the way to the bank with their million-dollar packages?

HOW LONG BEFORE THE PAP REMOVES ALL OPPOSITION FROM THE SINGAPORE POLITICAL SYSTEM?
It is already increasingly difficult to operate as an Opposition. They do not get access to what rightly belongs to the people. They don't even have proper offices. The PAP wants to fix them. And fix them good.

How many more years do Singaporeans have before it becomes impossible to exist as an Opposition? The more PAP MPs there are in Parliament, the easier it is for them to pass new rules and regulations. That must mean the possibility that the day will come when Singapore becomes truly a one-party state. Like communist China.

WAKE UP, SINGAPORE. BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE! IF YOU GIVE THE PAP A STRONG MANDATE TODAY, THEY HAVE FIVE YEARS – I REPEAT, FIVE YEARS – TO PUT INTO PLACE A SINGAPORE SO DIFFERENT YOU WILL REGRET YOUR MISSED OPPORTUNITY! BE WARNED TODAY, OR LIVE WITH THE CONSEQUENCES FOREVER!

More on the word 'fix'

2006-05-05T18:23:00.000+08:00

Thanks to "abc" who gave me this link on how the Prime Minister's father used the word "fix". The quote was taken from the book, The Man and His Ideas, written by three journalists at The Straits Times – its Editor, Mr Han Fook Kwang, and Warren Fernandez and Sumiko Tan. The book was published by a Singapore Press Holdings outfit, Times Publishing, in 1998.

The link is: http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/post/singapore/government/
leekuanyew/lky7.html

What Lee Kuan Yew said about Workers' Party former leader, J. B. Jeyaretnam:

"Put it this way. As long as Jeyaretnam stands for what he stands for -- a thoroughly destructive force – we will knock him. There are two ways of playing this. One, you attack the policies; two, you attack the system. Jeyaretnam was attacking the system, he brought the Chief Justice into it. If I want to fix you, do I need the Chief Justice to fix you? Everybody knows that in my bag I have a hatchet, and a very sharp one. You take me on, I take my hatchet, we meet in the cul-de-sac. That's the way I had to survive in the past. That's the way the communists tackled me. He brought the Chief Justice into the political arena."

I wonder if Lee Sr passed on his bag of tricks – and hatchet – to his Dear Son. Were these things part of the dinner conversation at the Lee household? Was the Prime Minister trained in the LKY Distinguished School of Politics? Who else graduated from this eminent school? Your guess is as good as mine.

Free in Hougang but paid for everywhere

2006-05-05T14:59:00.000+08:00

"If the Hougang Town Council, a small outfit with limited funds, can provide free upgrading to residents, why can't the resource-rich PAP do it as well?"

Those words are from the Workers' Party chief, Low Thia Khiang, who is the incumbent at Hougang. He said he has upgraded 58 lifts to stop at every floor at 28 blocks of flats in his constituency – free of charge! Not one cent came from residents of those 28 blocks.

But it raises a very powerful question for the PAP and all Singaporeans. Yes, if Hougang can do it, why can't lift upgrading be done free of charge in all constituencies?

Why should residents pay? What happens when a resident moves out? Will he get back the 10 per cent he has paid for the upgrading? Will the next resident who moves in pay him that 10 per cent?

That's the question every HDB resident must ask when he/she goes to the polls tomorrow.

PM sorry? Not from the statement

2006-05-05T12:28:00.000+08:00

The PM has apologised for saying he would fix the Opposition. Let's dissect his press statement and see if he is truly sorry.

But first, here's the statement, released by his press secretary today. "At the lunchtime rally in UOB Plaza on Wednesday, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong addressed the issue of opposition MPs in Parliament. He said that if the opposition were to hold 10 to 20 seats in Parliament, he would have to spend much more time thinking what was the right way to "fix" them. What PM meant by his remark was that if there were many more opposition MPs in Parliament, the government and opposition would spend all their time and energies countering each other, and Singapore would be worse off for it. He used direct language to get this important point across to a mass rally crowd. If the exact words he used offended, he is sorry."

And here's what the PM said, in his own words, as reported by his old faithful, The Straits Times: "Supposing you had a Parliament with 10, 15, 20 opposition members out of 80. Then, instead of spending my time thinking of what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking - what is the right way to fix them, what's the right way to buy my own supporters over, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"

Point No. 1: Why didn't he say sorry himself?
The PAP makes very strong demands of the Opposition. Not only was it unhappy with Mr James Gomez saying sorry; it wants the WP leader to drop him, and it also wants the WP leader to "come clean."

Now we ask: Why was it your press secretary who has to apologise on your behalf? Why didn't you personally apologise to the Opposition for saying it? Why didn't you personally apologise to all those Singaporeans who heard you at the rally, on the radio, TV and the internet?

Point No. 2: He's no fool to use the wrong words
Mr Lee is an Oxbridge graduate, highly intelligent and with an impeccable command of the English language, as evidenced by the words he has used throughout this election and during the past few years as a national leader. He knows the meaning of the word "fix" and especially in the context that it was used. He is not a stupid man.

Fixing the Opposition is really what the PAP does – and very well, too. From banning the use of podcasts and other technologies, to increasing deposits, to the number of candidates in a GRC, to the regular redrawing of electoral boundaries – these are all tools used to fix the Opposition, even though the PAP keeps saying they want to keep the bar high for political aspirants!

Point No. 3: Why no apology to Singaporeans for saying he would buy them over?
In his rally speech, the PM also said he would have to "buy over" the Singapore voter if there were 10, 20 Opposition MPs in Parliament.

Why has he ignored the anger among Singaporeans who felt insulted by this statement? Why didn't he apologise to every Singaporean for saying he would buy them over? Are Singaporeans that cheap that he can afford to ignore them?

Point No. 4: He wasn't even sorry about the idea of fixing the Opposition
In the statement, it is clear that all Mr Lee was sorry about was the use of language. In other words, he did not give any guarantee that the PAP would NOT fix the Opposition. He left the question unanswered which must mean that the PAP has done that, is doing that and will continue to fix the Opposition.

Point No. 5: Why the delay in apologising?
The PM made the remarks at lunchtime on Wednesday. Why has it taken nearly 48 hours to apologise? Was the PAP machinery sleeping? Did he think the scandal would blow away, hoping Singaporeans would miss it? Was he taking Singaporeans for granted, yet again?

Point No. 6: It is a conditional apology
You will notice the last sentence which says: "If the exact words he used offended, he is sorry." This means that he is only sorry if people were offended by the exact words, NOT the idea of fixing the Opposition.

So if you were not offended by his remarks, then Mr Lee is not sorry. He meant what he said.

Point No. 7: If he can't explain something simply, how can he explain bigger and more complex issues facing the nation?
Here is where the problem is. His press secretary, who takes instruction from the man, has to interpret what his boss really meant. Which brings us to the question: What if there was something of great complexity that the nation is facing? How is Mr Lee going to explain it so that the lowly-educated Singaporean as well as the intelligentsia like himself can understand?

THE BOTTOM LINE: THE PRIME MINISTER IS NOT SINCERE
From all the above, it is crystal clear that the apology is not sincere at all.

My conclusions: This man is not fit to be the Prime Minister. If he cannot handle 10, 20 Opposition MPs, how can he handle bigger issues that would face Singapore in the next five, 10 years?

For example, how can he handle the situation when the International Monetary Fund meets in Singapore soon? There will be thousands of protestors from all over the world who will move into Singapore to voice their dissent in front of an eminent gathering of world leaders.

How can Mr Lee cope with an angrier, more sophisticated, more cunning, more highly-organised, more powerfully-backed group of dissenters? Wield the same iron fist as he and his father have done successfully in Singapore over the past four decades? You must be joking!

If the PM cannot choose words with more care, how can we trust him when he meets world leaders?

If he does not have the gall to apologise personally when it comes to a minor issue, how can we expect him to tell us the truth when the issue is far bigger?

And finally, if this man is not sincere even in his apology, can we trust him to be sincere when he says to Singaporeans: "Don't worry"?

I tell you, I am worried if Singapore is led by such a man! Give me Chok Tong anytime. At least the man's decent and sincere.

The PM's cock-eyed view of things

2006-05-05T12:06:00.000+08:00

Here's how the PM is trying to hoodwink Singaporeans with his fallacious arguments. Do not be fooled by his sweet talk.

THE GST HIKE
He said: New Singapore Shares and Economic Restructuring Shares (ESS) were given to help Singaporeans cope with the GST hike from three to five per cent. The ESS lower-income families received were worth more than 10 years of the GST for lower-income families

We, the people, say: Can anyone honestly say to these poor families that they should keep all the amount and use it over the next 10 years to meet the increase in GST?

Would it not have been better to exempt these lower-income families from GST? Yes, it takes some administrative work, but in the end, they will benefit more than a lump-sum payment which, as we all know, human beings tend to squander very quickly.

OPEN AND FAIR?
He said: "When we do things, we are honest, we are open, we are fair, we are upfront. But when the opposition stirs it up and twists it and presents half the story, then people get alarmed."

We say: Open and fair? Then show us, don't tell us. Show us the billions in CPF monies invested overseas. Show us where you have lost and where you have gained. Show us how electoral boundaries are redrawn. Show us fairness when you deal with dissenters. Show us why and how police decide on where rallies should be held.

Give us convincing reasons why Singaporeans cannot speak to crowds of more than five people without a permit. Show us why Singaporeans cannot even use podcasts during the elections when you and the PAP are so eager to push technology to every Singaporean. Show us objectivity when you accuse others of the same things you and your people do (such as InderBack-stabbing' Singh).

OPPOSITION PLANS
He said: "They said they wanted to talk about the future. Unfortunately, they have not had concrete plans."

We say: They have concrete plans, but you just dismiss them outright. You don't even address them. In your typical PAP way (refined by your father), everything is useless and of no value unless it comes from the PAP. Like father, like son.

OPPOSITION'S EXISTENCE
He said: "Their goal is purely a short-term, selfish, political one, which is 'What methods can I use to get into Parliament?' Very simple."

We say: That's an oversimplification, underestimation and gross misunderstanding of the Opposition. If it's short-term, why would Mr Chiam still be standing in Potong Pasir? Why is the Workers' Party still around (a lot longer than you have been in politics, Mr PM). You mean to convince Singaporeans by such simple and false logic? This is exactly the same mindset that your father has passed on to you and to all PAP MPs because everyone of you seem to parrot exactly the same reason! What's the matter with the PAP MPs? Don't each of you have independence of thought? Tsk...tsk...

MEANS-TESTING
He said: "What the Opposition is trying to do is to make people worried, alarmed, angry, upset and hopefully vote for them and against the PAP."

We say: It is the PAP which has changed its tune only in the last week after the Opposition kept hammering on the issue. It was your government which said you were looking into means-testing in hospitals to make sure only those who really needed Class C wards would get them.

But in the last week, your Health Minister has changed his tune from saying "we will consult" to "we have not even begun studying it yet" to "we may not even implement it".

Now who is creating the confusion? Isn't it Mr Khaw? But in your arrogance, you have said you want him to continue as Health Minister, even before Singaporeans have gone to the polls.

MRT fares going up after the elections!

2006-05-05T11:54:00.000+08:00

The PM has made an accusation against the Opposition. "(They are), as usual, rumour-mongering. It is impossible for costs never to go up," he said at a press conference.

But one thing is certain. MRT fares will go up after the election. How do we know that? Because the Public Transport Council has postponed making a decision to a request by train operators to increase fares. The postponement, up to August, must have been ordered by the PAP knowing full well that an election was coming up.

If PTC had rejected the increases, it would have said so right away, thus allaying any fear among Singaporeans. And it would have been of great political mileage to the PAP.

I cannot understand why fares have to be increased! Take a look at the profit and loss statement of SMRT. Its website says SMRT's net profit for the 2006 financial year was $103.6 million.

With such a huge amount, how dare PTC allow the train operators to increase fares at the expense of Singaporeans who are already facing the crunch in higher petrol prices, higher medical costs, higher parking fees, higher everything! But salaries have remained largely the same! And where is the restoration of CPF cuts promised one election ago?

Just a few months after the 2001 election, the PAP increased fares on public transport, the electronic road pricing scheme and other charges. What is there to stop them from doing the same this time? A few Opposition MPs in Parliament.

What Australia really thinks of the PAP

2006-05-05T09:21:00.000+08:00

Here's a quote from an Australian paper which someone kindly sent to me:

"Their (PAP) victories lack legitimacy because of the means by which they are secured. That is a tragedy, because the PAP does deserve to win, given its excellent record on managing Singapore and its economy."

If you wish to read the article in full, go to: http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/singapores-farcical
-election-undermines-its-achievements
/2006/05/02/1146335732352.html?page=2

Does LKY walk around his ward?

2006-05-05T09:07:00.000+08:00

SM Goh Chok Tong harps on how old Mr Chiam is yet again. This time he says Mr Chiam, at 71, may not have the energy to walk around Potong Pasir to inspect the consituency as part of his work as an MP and head of the Town Council.

We need to pose the same question to the other senior citizens in the PAP, in particular Mr Goh himself and Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

Does Mr Lee really walk around his constituency to inspect it? Or does he have younger people doing it for him? Does Mr Goh? Does the Prime Minister? Do ALL PAP MPs personally inspect the constituencies?

As a matter of fact, I've never seen my MP. Not even during the elections! And you talk about Opposition candidates appearing out of nowhere?

Come, come, Mr Goh, if you have nothing worthwhile to criticise Mr Chiam for, then do what is right and acceptable as a decent human being (which you are). Give the man credit where credit is due. No need to stoop that low!

Your money used to threaten you

2006-05-05T08:35:00.000+08:00

So PAP's Potong Pasir sacrificial lamb Sitoh Yin Pin has promised $80 million to residents!! Wow, that's amazing. How did he do that? Was it PAP money that is footing the bill for lift upgrades in 56 blocks? No, sir, it's your money and mine.

THIS IS PAP MANIPULATION OF THE FIRST ORDER!

The $80 million is part of the budget for the Ministry of National Development, headed by Mr Mah Bow Tan. Each year, during the budget debates, the minister has to outline his plans in Parliament and account for each dollar. So all the money the minister has at his disposal has already been set aside for certain programmes.

Now, to say that Mr Sitoh has secured the approval of the minister to use that money for lift upgrades in Potong Pasir is a blatant lie. If the money had not budgetted in the first place, it would not have been there.

Secondly, if the money had not been budgetted particularly for Potong Pasir, then the minister would have to find it from somewhere else. In other words, another constituency or another project may have to be delayed or cancelled.

So stop this nonsense that so-and-so has promised this project and project when the budget had already approved them long before the elections.

PAP VOTERS ARE PUNISHED TOO, SO DON'T GET TOO HAPPY IF YOU VOTE FOR THEM
But what's most unacceptable in a FREE COUNTRY is the way the PAP uses that money which rightly belongs to every Singaporean.

The PAP constantly uses YOUR money to threaten YOU by saying that constituencies that vote for the Opposition will not be provided with the facilities that other Singaporeans get.

How can this be fair?
• Within Opposition wards, there are also PAP voters. They too have been lumped together with the "bad" Singaporeans for voting Opposition and punished simply for being in that constituency.
• Secondly, it is not fair to those PAP voters in PAP constituencies because there are also Opposition voters. So Opposition voters in PAP constituencies "enjoy" the fruits of voting PAP.
• Thirdly, the PAP keeps crowing about how it really has its heart for all of Singapore, and that it can't afford to let the world see how certain areas in Singapore are slums. Yet, by denying services and facilities to Opposition wards, it is prepared to let these become eye-sores for the entire world to see. You call that having a heart for all Singaporeans? That sounds like speaking with a forked tongue.

Thus Opposition voters in PAP constituences are treated like PAP voters and vice versa. So it actually makes a lot of sense if you vote for the Opposition in wards that are strongly PAP, such as Aljunied, Ang Mo Kio, etc. That way, you get all the PAP benefits and show them not to muck around with the all-important doctrine of FAIRNESS and EQUALITY.

A SCARY SCENARIO
If we take the PAP's own reasoning – that it will give special treatment to PAP voters – to its logical conclusion, we may even see the day when the PAP will move all PAP voters into PAP-only constituencies? Imagine a Singapore divided completely along party lines. Imagine 35-45 per cent of Singaporeans living in Opposition wards and the rest in PAP wards. Imagine a family split up according to his party of choice. That is a scary thought. Sounds like a First World country?

P/S: By the way, is Mr Mah Bow Tan taking revenge on Potong Pasir because it was he who first lost the seat to Mr Chiam back in 1984? Is that typical PAP thinking? Hmmm.... food for thought.

The future is NOW!

2006-05-05T08:09:00.000+08:00

"The most important issue is your future," declared the highly-intelligent Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister, son of former Prime Minister, brigadier-general, Oxbridge graduate, husband of a super-efficient and extremely capable CEO of Temasek Holdings, and the best man to lead the PAP and Singapore.

Well, if that is all he can muster up, I am supremely sorry for our nation. Tell me, is there ever an election about the past? Has there ever been an election in Singapore which has never been about the future?

Is that why we are paying him $2 million a year? Come on, Mr Lee, use your brains and stop souting motherhood statements just like your ministers and your grand manifesto! The issue is NOT about the future (it always is). It is about our future security encapsulated in our fundamental rights of living in a free country without fear or favour. It is about the here and now, too.

• Are Singaporeans better off today than five years ago?
• Can we afford the things we could five years ago?
• Can you contain medical costs?
• Can you guarantee the PAP will not do things to further erode our freedoms (which are already grossly restricted)?
• Can you be more transparent and accountable in handling our billions of dollars, and not dabble in another Suzhou debacle?
• Can you give an iron-clad guarantee that every Singaporean will be treated equally, regardless of his creed (political and otherwise), colour, religion, and race, as we recite each morning all over Singapore?
• Can you guarantee that all forms of fear (perceived or real) shall be removed from us?
• Can you guarantee the poor (such as the 80-year-old tissue-paper pedlar) they will be looked after?
• Can you guarantee that my liberties will not be further curbed?
• Can you guarantee an open society?

I'm afraid the answers to many of them will have to be a resounding NO! Singaporeans therefore have a duty to ensure that the future Singapore is a free country where citizens have freedom of choice, not decisions shoved down our throats, where our fundamental rights as citizens of a free country are not trampled upon with impugnity.

Can you really, really trust your back-stabbing PAP MP?

2006-05-04T17:50:00.000+08:00

When is a casual conversation with your MP actually a casual conversation? Will he ever use it against you?

Judging from Mr Inderjit Singh's "expose" of his casual conversation with Mr James Gomez, Singaporeans must be warned: What you say can always be used against you.

Mr Singh released a statement documenting everything he and Mr Gomez allegedly talked about on Nomination Day. Remember that both of them have been friends for a very long time, as Mr Singh himself said, and it was a casual conversation!

WHAT A BACK-STABBER MR SINGH IS! WILL HE BETRAY
YOUR TRUST AT MEET-THE-PEOPLE'S SESSIONS?
After this episode, I have come to the personal conclusion that Mr Singh is a man absolutely without morals, dishonourable, untrustworthy and certainly a person I would not trust. He is likely to turn you to your enemies in times of war – to look after his own a+*&!

And to think that this is the man whom the Prime Minister has chosen to run with him as a candidate in the Ang Mo Kio GRC. He is the man who will meet residents of Ang Mo Kio at meet-the-people's sessions. Will you dare talk to him? Will you dare trust him with confidential matters if he treats casual conversations so casually and nonchalantly? Is he going to stab you in the back?

Besides that, Mr Singh's statement tells me a lot about the character evaluation that the PM and the PAP are so proud of. Surely there must be a character flaw in a man who can throw away trust between friends just like that. With friends like this, you don't really need enemies. And yet the PAP keeps trumpeting about how wonderful their candidates are!

Thirdly, and more importantly, the episode raises the vital question: when can you talk to a PAP MP and be 100 per cent sure that he is not going to use that against you some day?

Let's say you attend a meet-the-people's session with your MP. You give him all the information he needs, including many confidential ones. Then one day you land into some kind of trouble. That MP decides to release all the conversation between you and him. The court of law finds you guilty as charged.

Sorry, chum, your MP said so.

THIS IS THE SAME INDERJIT 'BACK-STABBER' SINGH
BEHIND THE ANDREW KUAN SAGA
Remember Andrew Kuan, the man who tried to stand for the Presidential elections? Well, he too, was involved in a legal stoush with Inderjit Singh. Mr Kuan was hired by Mr Singh's company as a consultant. His contract was extended, presumably for good work (otherwise, how else would a company extend a consultant's contract?), only to be fired later. A letter signed by Mr Singh said he was "pleased" to extend Mr Kuan's contract.

But when Mr Kuan tried to stand for the elections, Mr Singh did what he called his "moral duty" by publishing statements about Mr Kuan's work performance and employment record. Mr Singh was defended by, who else but another PAP man, Davinder Singh?

So the James Gomez saga is the second time (at least the ones we know of) that Mr Singh has done someone in. What does this tell you about the character of the man? I say that's one really bad, nasty egg! Perhaps we should ask people who have had experiences with Mr Singh to issue statements about him!

A PLEA TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Here is clear-cut evidence that you have one bad egg in your basket. You have called on the Workers' Party to disassociate itself from Mr Gomez. We now ask you to do the same: Drop Inderjit Singh from Ang Mo Kio GRC. He has tainted ALL PAP MPs by his actions. You said the PAP's integrity is of utmost importance. You said you will not tolerate a display of lack of integrity. You said Singapore's reputation is at stake. We agree with you. How can we trust Inderjit Singh, especially at meet-the-people's sessions. Now, please do the honourable thing, Mr Prime Minister. Drop him! You still have one minority candidate in Dr Balaji Sadasivan.

WARNING TO ALL SINGAPOREANS
Is this the first time something like that has happened? Not in my memory. I can only conclude that PAP MPs have no qualms whatsoever in betraying you when it suits the party and their purposes. Just like communist China!

So when you go to the polling booth this Saturday, do remember this: Is this the man or woman whom I can trust 100 per cent? Is he going to play me out one fine day?

PAP

singapore elections

Lee Hsien Loong

James Gomez

Workers' Party

Coming to a hospital near you: Higher costs

2006-05-04T16:38:00.000+08:00

The facts are there for every discerning and concerned Singaporean to see. The PAP spends a lot less in percentage terms in health care than they like to make it seem (see the next article). But what's even scarier is that these costs will only go up, most definitely not down!

The PAP has already flagged that it will introduce means-testing in hospitals, particularly for C-class wards. What does that mean? In one word: EXPENSIVE. In two words: VERY UNAFFORDABLE. In three words: CAN'T GET SICK!

As evidenced by the World Health Organisation's statistics below, Singaporeans are already paying 64 per cent of health care costs. You can bet that with means-testing, this could hit 70 per cent, if not more. How?

SOME SCENARIOS FOR MEANS-TESTING
• C-class wards only for those who earn less than $1,000 to $1,200 a month
• C-class wards only for those in three-room flats
• C-class wards only for those who vote for the PAP
• C-class wards only for those who do not own cars
• C-class wards only for those with a small balance in their CPF with assets taken into consideration
• C-class wards only for those living in certain neighbourhoods.
• C-class wards only for those who can prove their financial distress

WHAT IT MEANS TO YOU
It is not so far-fetched to think that these are very real possibilities. What it means is that every Singaporean who does not fit this list will have no choice but to go to the more expensive wards.

Too bad if you can't afford it. The PAP will concoct some other options for you: such as borrowing money from the government to be paid back through your CPF. Why not? They've already set the precedent for this in the upgrading exercise. Many Singaporeans who really do not want to have the upgrading and who cannot afford it have been forced to take loans from the government.

That's exactly what means-testing comes down to. Until and unless the Health Minister tells Singaporeans what he has in mind, we will have to think of the various options open to him. In countries where they have means-testing, such as the UK, USA, Canada and Australia, citizens are judged by the salaries they make, the type of housing they live in and the suburb. They also have to disclose all their assets.

I am writing this not to scare you, but to make you think about what it really means when Mr Khaw says he wants to introduce means-testing for hospitalisation, especially in C-class wards.

In the pink of health: at YOUR expense!

2006-05-04T08:26:00.000+08:00

Singapore has the sixth best medical service in the world, according to PM Lee, citing World Health Organisation figures. But the most important question is this: Who is paying for all this?

If you go to the WHO website, there is a plethora of research information, statistics and documents. I could not find the figures PM Lee was referring to. Even assuming he is correct (and I do not doubt it), the fact that Singapore is No. 6 is not the crucial point. What is at issue is who is paying for all these wonderful services and facilities?

THE COLD, HARD FACT: IT'S YOU WHO PAY AND PAY!
Singapore's per capita spending on health in 2003 was US$964. However (and this is important), the government share of this was only US$348. That's just 36 per cent or way, way under half of the total. Who paid for the remaining US$616? It's mostly YOU, my dear Singaporeans.

Now compare the figures to other First World nations. The first set of figures is for total expenditure on health and the numbers in brackets are the amounts spent by the government. All figures are in US$ at average exchange rate:

• Australia $2519 (Government's share: $1699 or 67.4 per cent)
• Japan $2662 ($2158 or 81 per cent)
• Canada $2669 ($1866 or 69.9 per cent)
• Switzerland $5035 ($2945 or 58.5 per cent)
• Spain $1541 ($1098 or 71.2 per cent)
• UK $2428 ($2081 or 85.7 per cent)
• USA $5711 ($2548 or 44.6 per cent)
• Sweden $3149 ($2684 or 85.2 per cent)

It is clear, isn't it, that in every one of these First World countries, the government spends more on health than do the people. Singapore falls in the same category as developing and underdeveloped nations when it comes to government spending on health. Our closest neighbour, Malaysia (a developing country), spent $163 of which $95 – that's nearly 60 per cent – was by the government.

PAP SPENDS LESS THAN EVEN UKRAINE!
PLEASE EXPLAIN, MR KHAW BOON WAN!
The PAP government's share of spending on health care is about the same percentage points as countries such as Lebanon, Cyprus, El Salvador, and South Africa. Even the governments of Croatia, Turkey, Ukraine and many other Third World countries spend more in percentage terms than super affluent Singapore. Surely the Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan needs to explain why to all Singaporeans?

Sure, we do have some of the finest hospitals and medical services in Singapore, but at whose expense? Hospitals provide the services, but it is YOU who PAY AND PAY!

No wonder the Opposition parties have been drumming home this issue – that medical costs are sky-rocketing – while the PAP has been gravely silent on it.

When I was in Malaysia last week, a couple of Indonesians told me that many of their countrymen were now going to Malaysia for medical treatment because they were a lot cheaper there. "The facilities are just as good," said one of them. "Singapore is for the rich (Indonesians)," he added.

So do you still think the PAP is giving you First World health care? Services, definitely, but in terms of costs, you're the sucker who has to pay. The statistics are there for all Singaporeans to see.

P/S: YOU WILL NEVER READ ABOUT THIS NEGATIVE ASPECT OF THE PAP (especially now that the elections are on) IN THE ALWAYS RELIABLE STRAITS TIMES, SO BEST TO GO TO THE WHO WEBSITE AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF. The URL is: http://www.who.int/whr/2006/annex/06_annex3_en.pdf

Fix-them-and-delete-them PAPER

2006-05-04T08:15:00.000+08:00

Did you notice The Straits Times this morning? It has done a marvellous cover-up job for the Prime Minister. Always dependable and reliable. As usual.

Yesterday, in its online edition, there was a quote on how the PM would have to spend time fixing the Opposition and buying over voters if there were 10, 20 Opposition MPs in Parliament (see post "Fix-them-buy-them-over PM" below).

This morning, in the printed edition, those quotes had mysteriously disappeared. Ha... did someone from the PM's office speak to the editor? Or did the chief censor at Toa Payoh North do his job? Bonus payments coming up, dude!

Question for all Singaporeans: Doesn't a First World nation deserve a First World newspaper? The Straits Times is far from that, judging by its consistent disregard for being fair and objective.

Chiam's "knockout punch"

2006-05-03T22:58:00.000+08:00

What's the bet that in the next couple of days, we will see the obvious? Not from the PAP, but its stooges at The Straits Times.

SM Goh Chok Tong had said: "If Chiam can convince the people of Potong Pasir that he can do it (provide free lift upgrading), then I think he can win the elections. If Sitoh can prove that Chiam is making wild claims and empty promises, that will be the knockout punch for Chiam See Tong."

Mr Goh has been saying at PAP rallies that Potong Pasir Town Council's accounts are in the red. I can almost bet that the Always Reliable Straits Times will dutifully publish the accounts of Potong Pasir, probably with the help of the PAP. When? Most probably on Saturday itself, if not sooner. Wanna bet?

Fix-them-and-buy-them-over PM

2006-05-03T21:00:00.000+08:00

The majority of Singaporeans think highly of the PAP. Good brains is one of the key selling points of the party. Here's a chance for you to have a laugh at the expense of the Prime Minister.

TRIPLE TREAT OR THREAT?
This afternoon, the PM said: "Supposing you had a Parliament with 10, 15, 20 opposition members out of 80. Then, instead of spending my time thinking of what is the right policy for Singapore, I'm going to spend all my time thinking - what is the right way to fix them, what's the right way to buy my own supporters over, how can I solve this week's problem and forget about next year's challenges?"

Astounding that a Prime Minister reputed to have a great intellect can say such things.

• FIRSTLY, if he has to spend all his time doing that, he is not fit to be PM. Look at countries where there are large numbers of Opposition MPs – Britain, USA, Australia, Indonesia. Are those leaders unable to do things for the country?

• SECONDLY, BG Lee has revealed what the PAP really does when it faces Opposition – BUY OVER voters. And that's exactly what the Progress Package is all about.

• THIRDLY, he has also revealed another PAP tactic – fix Opposition candidates. I think we all know that one. Very well ;-) I might add!

GRC's purpose debunked by PAP itself!

2006-05-03T15:54:00.000+08:00

Foreign Minister BG Yeo says four people can run a GRC equally well (see post below). That begs the question: Why then did the PAP introduce five and six-member GRCs?

The answer is pretty obvious when you begin to think about it, isn't it? It only makes it harder and harder for Opposition parties to field strong teams.

The PAP has been making it tougher to stand in elections ever since I can remember. On the face of it, all the changes seem democratic and are vigorously defended and justified by the PAP. But these new rules and regulations have been introduced in the guise of serving the people but really are designed to make it exceedingly difficult to stand for elections.

NOWHERE IN THE FIRST WORLD AND DEMOCRATIC COUNTRIES WILL YOU FIND SUCH TOUGH ELECTION RULES.

The very fact that the Elections Department is not an independent body, but a government arm reporting to the Prime Minister, is already a serious flaw in the democratic process.

Then there is the redrawing of boundaries every time an election comes around, the increases in deposits and, of course, bigger and bigger GRC teams. No member of the public knows exactly how and why boundaries are redrawn. We just have to take the government's word for it, and that's totally unacceptable in a country that claims First World status.

But never mind.... What's more interesting is how the concept of GRCs has been manipulated. The PAP started with a couple of three-member GRCs, because it said, it wanted to ensure that minority candidates would be represented. But then it increased the number of members in each GRC.

Now there are six-member GRCs, which immediately raises doubts about the original purpose of GRCs. If each GRC were intended to make sure that there would be minority candidates, why not make them all three-member GRCs? That would immediately double the number of minority candidates.

Here's a simple calculation:
• There are 9 five-member GRCs (4 of which are being contested)
• There are 5 six-member GRCs (3 of which are being contested)
Total: 75 candidates.

If all 75 were grouped into three-member GRCs, that means 25 GRCs – or 25 minority candidates, as opposed to just 14 in the current GRC structure.

Now wasn't it the PAP who said they wanted to ensure there were minority candidates? Or has the PAP pulled wool over Singaporeans' eyes yet again?

Now, I'm beginning to wonder when we will be getting seven and eight-member GRCs? Not for long, I suspect. We might as well have 84-member GRCs! Much easier, wouldn't you say?

BG Yeo's comment that four-member GRCs are able to run a constituency equally well is certainly true. That means we can easily discard some PAP candidates too!

Come on, Singapore!

PAP: Judge and jury?

2006-05-03T15:40:00.000+08:00

I'm astounded that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Foreign Minister George Yeo have both said it is OK for the Workers' Party to drop James Gomez from the slate of candidates in Aljunied GRC. Are they also the Law Minister, the Chief Justice and the Elections Commissioner? Can they change the law willy-nilly? Well, they certainly are behaving as if they are still in the military where their word is king.

Such is the attitude of the PAP that its ministers dare to make decisions that only a court of law can! Is that democracy at work? Or is that the Cabinet running the Judiciary?

Here's what BG Yeo said, as reported in The Straits Times online today: 'Let the Aljunied election continue. They have a slate of four, we have a slate of five, but doesn't matter. Even a slate of four can cover the constituency well. And let us in the remaining days concentrate on what we can do for the residents and voters in Aljunied.'

This afternoon, at a lunchtime rally in Boat Quay, the PM told the WP: "Get rid of this albatross. It will drag you down."

In other words, they have decided that they can over-ride the Elections Department – and more importantly, the High Court – in deciding whether or not the elections in Aljunied can go on without James Gomez, whose candidature has been approved by the government-run Elections Department.

I am well and truly shocked. Let all Singaporeans open their eyes and see the blatant attitude of the PAP.

Just another PAP smear

2006-05-03T08:08:00.000+08:00

The James Gomez saga has played out as expected. It is a typical PAP smear!

This election has not turned out any surprises thus far. In typical PAP fashion, it has latched onto one controversy and lined up all the big guns against it. If you look back at every GE, you will find the same tactic.

SEARCH AND DESTROY
Here's how the PAP smear works out:
• Find a target
• With the help of the compliant media, make a big show of it
• Fire first shot
• Bring out the other ammunition one by one.
• Make the same point over and over again at rally after rally (helped by the compliant media)
• Just before Election Day, make a big fuss of this

THE HALL OF SHAME
The last GE, it was Chee Soon Juan. The ones before that, it was J B Jeyaretnam, Francis Siow, Liang whatever-his-name is and Jufri Mohammed.

Sounds familiar? This time, it's James Gomez. Why? Because I think the PAP fears that the Aljunied GRC with a host of talent from the Workers' Party is the most credible opposition that the PAP will face.

IGNORE THE ISSUES, FOCUS ON ONE
You will notice, of course, that the PAP has studiously ignored all other issues raised by the Opposition. To them, there's only one issue – that of integrity.

But integrity is also an issue with the PAP, like all fallible men. If LKY, his beloved son BG Lee, Goh Chok Tong, Wong Kan Seng and every PAP candidate can look at Singaporeans in the eye and say they have never, ever lied to them in any way, or made a mistake, then I say they are the BIGGEST LIARS.

I urge all Singaporeans to put on their scrutineer's glasses and look at the REAL ISSUES and not get distracted by the PAP's clever strategy of distracting voters' attention from the high cost of living, the high cost of health, among many other things. But the most important is this: the gradual erosion of democratic principles and values.

THIS IS YOUR ONLY CHANCE TO CHANGE THE WAY POLITICS IS PLAYED OUT IN SINGAPORE. THIS IS YOUR CHANCE TO TURN SINGAPORE INTO A TRULY FIRST WORLD DEMOCRACY, NOT A SOCIALIST STATE IN THE MOULD PAP WANTS IT TO BE. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO TELL THE PAP THAT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

Failure to do so means that when the next election comes around, there may not be any Opposition left.

The Echo Chamber at Toa Payoh North

2006-05-02T17:00:00.000+08:00

Did you read this morning's issue of The Straits Times asking questions of WP chairman Sylvia Lim and secretary-general Low Thia Khiang?

What a pathetic display of journalistic skills, or rather the lack of it. The questions the reporters asked the two Opposition candidates looked as if they came straight from the PAP.

Their approach, printed verbatim today, was: "Mr Wong Kan Seng said this. What is your answer? Mr Wong said that. What is your answer?"

What's the matter with Singapore journalists, in particular those at The Straits Times? Don't they have independence of thought? Why are you asking on Mr Wong's behalf? Why not ask the Prime Minister some hard questions the Opposition has raised?

Mr Low said he raised two issues at his rally, but has not received answers from the PAP. Neither were they reported in the Press.

WOULD YOU DARE GO ASK THE PAP ON HIS BEHALF? CERTAINLY NOT, YOU STOOGES!

I sympathise with all Singaporeans because we do not have a fair and independent Press, but one which functions like a PAP Echo Chamber.

Size matters!

2006-05-02T08:01:00.000+08:00

Have you noticed how the crowds have swelled at Opposition rallies, in particular those of the Workers' Party?

No wonder the PAP is using all its arsenal to fire away at the Workers' Party. They know that WP rallies have been very well attended with support at an all-time high.

That's because the WP has put forward the best team this time round. Kudos to party chief Low Thia Khiang and chairman Sylvia Lim!

Last night's rally at Tampines must have been attended by 50,000 people at least! Were they all going for a "show" as the PAP puts it sarcastically and thereby insulting the intelligence of Singaporeans?

No. They went because the newsPAPers do not report on Opposition rallies as they do PAP's. They went because they want to hear the unexpurgated truths about the PAP and not white-washed half truths. They went because they see the Workers' Party is credible.

CAVEAT: I am not voting this time.

Symbiotic relationship? More like a conflict

2006-05-02T07:47:00.000+08:00

Lee Hsien Loong calls it a "symbiotic relationship between the PAP, NTUC and the government. It sounds more like a conflict of interests.

How can a union boss negotiate with the ruling party without taking sides? Whose side is the union on? Workers' or the government when it comes to the crunch, like suggesting unilateral pay cuts and reductions in the CPF contribution rates?

We have all seen how workers have suffered over the past five years. Our wages have remained largely stagnant while the economy has "bounced back", in the words of the Prime Minister. And you dare call it a "symbiotic relationship"?

We have also seen how workers' rights have been diminished since this so-called symbiotic relationship took root since independence. The phrase "symbiotic relationship" was cooked up by Lee Kuan Yew in the 60s when unions were systematically reined in one by one.

For those of you too young to know, I encourage you to turn to the archives of the National Library where will read about how many union leaders were hounded out of their livelihoods and key PAP men put into positions of power. In those days, the Press was freer than it has ever been and you could read the truth.

LKY's old-pal-turned-enemy, Devan Nair, was his partner in dismantling the might of the unions.

No, I'm not a supporter of liberal unions, but one needs to put the record straight.

Short-sightedness of the PAP

2006-05-01T22:05:00.000+08:00

The talk is about lifts in HDB estates, in particular Potong Pasir. But here's a twist to the tale.

On the afternoon of Saturday April 29, I was at Bishan MRT when I saw several MRT staff trying to help a young boy in a wheelchair, presumably to go down to the platform to catch the train. He was put into a contraption that looked like a chair lift, and the staff were trying to strap him in.

My first thought was how insane this was and how frustrating it must have been for the boy, who looked no older than 15. In a First World country, the disabled have access to train stations. But at Bishan MRT, there are no lifts for them.

Does not this show the short-sightedness of the PAP? When they built the MRT, why didn't they think of installing lifts at ALL stations?

Not only that, it also shows the PAP's lack of compassion towards the disabled which is evident everywhere. The handicapped and wheelchair bound have great difficulty navigating themselves along Orchard Road, for example. Newspapers have highlighted their plight, but the PAP has shown complete disregard for them.

Thirdly, was it an attempt to save costs by not including lifts in ALL stations? If so, then it shows annother unsavoury streak in the PAP's mindset. Which goes something like this: The handicapped? So what, they're only a handful out of every 1,000 Singaporeans. Therefore, we can afford to ignore them. As long as a majority of people are served, that's OK.

This same thinking is behind the upgrading of HDB estates where extensions and lift upgrades are forced upon those who do not wish or who cannot afford these little extras.

First World government? No way!

Chok Tong should apologise to the old

2006-05-01T21:52:00.000+08:00

The PAP loves to keep harping on age as an issue for Mr Chiam See Tong. "This is a marathon, you've got to fight for five years and at the end of it, Mr Chiam will be 76," said Mr Goh Chok Tong last night.

In other words, Chiam is not fit to stay on as an MP. Potong Pasir residents must therefore vote for the PAP man Sitoh Yih Pin because "Sitoh is better than Chiam any time."

If age were an issue, then old fogeys like Lee Kuan Yew (more than 80 this year) and Mr Goh himself should not have contested this election and the one before that.

If age were an issue, the PAP should cut all ties with countries such as China, Japan, Australia and many others with leaders and ministers who are much older than Chiam since being old is a sign of incompetence.

In one fell swoop, Mr Goh has insulted all older Singaporeans and the leaders of these nations.

Secondly, if Sitoh were better than Chiam, why does he need the big guns like Mr Goh to fight the battle for him? Can't he stand on his own two feet?

WHAT KIND OF SOCIETY WILL SUCH WARPED THINKING BREED?

The worst thing about Mr Goh's comments is the damage it does to Singapore society. He is telling all our young people to pay no respect to those older Singaporeans. They're too old to do anything. Young is good. Old is useless. They should be discarded after giving of their best years.

The repercussions are scary. Younger Singaporeans will learn to have no respect for the old, which is already so in many cases. And that can be a huge economic liability for the nation.

Is that what the PAP wants to see? Is that responsible politics? Come on, Mr Goh, withdraw those remarks and apologise to all older Singaporeans!

Where in the First World?

2006-05-01T15:12:00.000+08:00

Is the PAP First World? Not according to some First World benchmarks

• BENCHMARK 1: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
In First World countries, you do not need permits to organise election rallies, speak in public, publish magazines, newsletters and other publications. In countries with dictatorships such as Pakistan and Burma, former communist countries such as Belarus, Kazakhstan and Chechnya and communist countries such as China, you must have a permit for these things.

Singapore falls into the same category as the former. Is that First World? A case in point is the SDP member, Gandhi Ambalam, who was convicted of speaking in public without a permit several years ago, said this morning's The Straits Times.

BENCHMARK 2: FREEDOM FROM FEAR
In First World countries, you do not live in a climate of fear for voicing opinions against the ruling party. Say whatever you like within the confines of the law and you and your family will not be hounded. You may even write anti-government papers and publish them online with your name and address without fear of persecution and arrest.

In Singapore, many people, especially civil servants are too frightened to speak. I know because my brothers and sisters are fearful they will lose their jobs if they so much as criticise the government. Call it rational or irrational fear without foundation, but the reality is that people DO live in such fear.

The PAP has stubbornly refused to remove the registration numbers on election slips and explained them away simply because it knows that its very existence creates such fears in people's minds.

BENCHMARK 3: MINIMUM WAGE POLICY
In First World countries, there is a minimum wage guaranteed by law. This protects workers from unscrupulous employers. In Third World countries, employees are at the mercy of employers. In Singapore, wages are artificially suppressed through this humbug called tripartism between the PAP, employers and unions. Result, Singapore wages are the lowest among First World countries but cost of living is up there with many of them.

Think of the thousands upon thousands of families in Singapore living on less than $2,000 a month. And there are thousands more living on less than $1,000.

Consider the Singapore taxi driver. He pays $97 a day to Comfort to "rent" the taxi, rain or shine, tired or not, sick or in the best of health. To get $97, he has to make about 20 trips of about $5 each. In other words, for the first three or four hours each day, he works for Comfort.

A typical taxi driver works 12 to 16 hours every day six or seven days a week if he wants to get an income of $2,000 a month with no CPF. Work a normal eight hours a day and he and his family won't be able to afford many things.

Why such an inequitable system when NTUC Comfort makes more than $200 million a year off the backs of cabbies?

Drugs: Cheaper in Australia

2006-05-01T10:31:00.000+08:00

Last night, at a Workers' Party rally, its candidate for the East Coast GRC, Perry Tong, said prices of drugs in Singapore were too high. He mentioned drugs used to treat chronic illnesses such as high blood pressure. Is he right?

I emailed a couple of friends overseas to find out the prices of just one common drug used to control high blood pressure. That drug is Atacand, widely used here.

Here's how it compares: In Australia, a pack of Atacand costs A$27.50 (S$33). The same drug costs S$44.50 in Singapore. In Malaysia, it is less than half the price.

As soon as I get prices in the UK and the USA, I will let you know. But I bet they will be cheaper than ours because the governments subsidise health care a great deal. I know because I have bought pharmaceuticals in the UK and USA while there on holidays and business, and almost always, they are cheaper than Singapore, even after conversion. How is that so?

We need answers, Mr Khaw Boon Wan. If you want to continue to be Health Minister in the PAP government (which BG Lee arrogantly says you will be even before the first votes have been cast), you'd better explain why.

James Gomez & Mrs Goh Chok Tong

2006-05-01T09:56:00.000+08:00

As expected, the big guns of the PAP (which includes the media) are firing away relentlessly at the Workers' Party and its candidate James Gomez over the saga of the minority candidate form. Isn't that pot calling the kettle black?

The PAP says it would never allow any misdeed by its people to go unpunished. The PAP says it reflects on the candidate and the party. In all these, the PAP is saying that it stands on a moral high ground. Now let's see what you make of the following:

• When it was disclosed that the NKF was paying millions of dollars in salaries and other perks to T T Durai, Mrs Goh Chok Tong was quoted as saying that the sum was "peanuts" considering the amount of money the organisation raised. Singaporeans, understandably, were outraged. But there was not a word of apology or a hint of regret from Mrs Goh or her husband.

• When we lost billions of Singaporeans' dollars in the Suzhou Industrial Park in China, the man behind it all – none other than the Great Lee Kuan Yew – got away scot-free. In fact, he went on to say what a wonderful lesson it was for us! He is still stoutly defending his grave error of judgment.

Singaporeans still do not know exactly how much we lost! He should have been sacked, as any First World country would do to such a man.

Are these greater sins that the James Gomez saga? Come on.....

PAParazzi PAPer

2006-05-01T09:46:00.000+08:00

A couple of days ago, it was an electric guitar brandished by a hip PAP candidate. Today it was Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean singing with Anita Sarawak. And he was so cool that NTUC secretary-general Lim Boon Heng and deputy secretary-general Lim Swee Say couldn't resist joining in.

What would people do to win votes, especially those of the young?

Why is it that when Opposition candidates such as WP Chairman, Sylvia Lim, sings at a dinner, she does not merit even one column inch in the NATIONAL newspaper? Surely she makes news, no?

Two for the price of one!

2006-05-01T09:40:00.000+08:00

Chiam See Tong is spot on! When you elect an Opposition candidate, you get two for the price of one!

Why? Because the PAP tries very, very hard to win back that seat. To do that, it spends a great deal of time and money on the constituents. For example, a $2 abalone porridge, among many other freebies, for residents of Potong Pasir. You won't get such treats as a matter of course in PAP-held constituencies.

PAP's most expensive translator

2006-05-01T09:32:00.000+08:00

Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong says he needs Seng Han Thong (facing SDA candidate Yip Yew Weng in Yio Chu Kang) to be re-elected. His reason? So that Seng can continue to translate for him during his visits to China.

Congratulations, Mr Seng, for being the most expensive translator this side of the universe. We should put you in the Guinness Book of Records.

Mr Goh probably visits China twice a year, maybe three. Mr Seng gets about $12,000 a month as an MP in addition to his fee/salary as a director of NTUC. Try and figure out how much that means whenever he translates for Mr Goh. Hmmm..... a nice little job, don't you think?

What? Singapore can't afford it?

2006-05-01T07:53:00.000+08:00

In today's article in The Straits Times headlined "PM Lee: We are tackling rising costs", the $2-million man defends the PAP for its policies. "We can't make the electricity cheap" he proclaims. Is it, really?

While the rest of Singapore suffers a 30 per cent increase in utility bills over the past two years, can the PAP tell us why government-linked companies and statutory boards continue to make huge sums of money?

Singtel (run by BG Lee's brother) is like a money-minting machine. The energy and utilities providers too turn a huge profit.

HERE'S A PARTIAL LIST OF WHAT THEY MAKE A YEAR
• SingPost's profits for the full year to March 31 2006 was $123.3 million, according to The Straits Times.
• SingTel's net profit for the year ended March 31 2005 was $3.27 billion, according to its website.
• SMRT's net profit for the 2006 financial year was $103.6 million, says its website.
• PSA's net profit for 2005 was a touch over $1 billion (or $1,058.1 million), says its website.
• NTUC Comfort makes more than $200 million a year.
• Temasek Holdings made $7.6 billion in the 2004 financial year, according to its website.
• DBS Group made a net profit of more than $2 billion in 2004, says its website.

THE GRAND TOTAL FOR THE FIRST FOUR IS MORE THAN THE $2.6 BILLION PAYOUT UNDER THE PROGRESS PACKAGE!

In fact, the profit of Temasek Holdings alone is more than sufficient to give Singaporeans a far more generous package every year, not just during an election.

There are very, very few government-linked companies that do not make any money.

The question is this: Should these essential services be profitable to such a huge extent at the expense of Singaporeans? Yes, make some money by all means, but do not profit from us suffering Singaporeans.

Hypocrisy of the first order?

2006-05-01T07:22:00.000+08:00

Several days ago, on the front page of The Straits Times, there was a picture of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong hugging a woman selling tissue paper. In his right hand were a couple of packets of tissue paper. Isn't that a bit hypocritical, I wonder?

Here's why:

If you go to various town centres, especially near the MRT stations, you will find scores of old people, disabled people, poor people, disadvantaged people, doing exactly the same thing, ie, selling tissue paper.

I don't know how much they get standing there for 8, 10, or 12 hours every day selling tissue paper. Probably not much.

I have even seen a woman who must be in her 70s, if not 80s, proferring tissue paper to passing commuters. How sad.

How sad that in a country that professes to be First World, there should still be 70- and 80-year-olds who have to eke out a living doing that. These are people who have contributed more than half of their lives to the wealth of Singapore. These are people who should have been able to put their feet up and enjoy the fruits of their labour.

Sadder still is the picture of BG Lee (whose salary is $2 million or thereabouts) trying to shower great love and compassion for that woman. Wasn't it a nice photo opportunity? A vote-grabbing photo. A heart-tugging moment. A man-of-the-people opportunity.

If the PAP were truly compassionate like many First World nations, the Secretary-General of the party would have none of this woeful sight around MRT stations and at our town centres.

No, instead, the PAP delights in filling the pockets of its ministers to the tune of $1 million to $2 million in annual salaries, and about $12,000 in monthly salaries to MPs. Who cares about these poor tissue-paper pedlars?

SO WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
I say a First World country looks after the poorest of its citizens. Not with the vote-buying Progress Package that comes once in a few years, but weekly or monthly payments. These can be means-tested, like in other First World countries, and tied to the Consumer Price Index.

And of course means tests have to be transparent, not something that the PAP concocts in secrecy and according to its whims and fancies. The PAP can do all that if there is no Opposition to scrutinise the means test.

That is why we need an Opposition in Singapore.

Are we truly First World?

2006-04-30T14:57:00.000+08:00

The PAP likes to consider itself First World. But is it really? Let's compare Singapore under the PAP and other First World nations.

ACCOUNTABILITY
First World governments are accountable to their citizens, especially when it comes to how it uses its finances. But in Singapore, not one member of the public knows exactly where the CPF billions are. We don't even know exactly how much of reserves we have.

Shouldn't the nation act like a good corporation by producing an annual report for its shareholders? The PAP requires all corporations to do so, but it flouts its own rules.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
First World nations are not afraid of being open to scrutiny. They have Freedom of Information laws which give its citizens access to government documents, including confidential ones. But try and ask the PAP for documents on how the constituencies' boundaries are drawn up, the decision-making process and all the figures related to it, and you will certainly be told to go jump.

AN INDEPENDENT PRESS
There is not a single First World country which does not have an independent Press. But in Singapore, the PAP is in full control of the Press through years of systematic and strategic acts. Every media organisation is run by someone linked to, sympathetic to or is a PAP member. For example, Singapore Press Holdings' chairman is Dr Tony Tan, the former Deputy Prime Minister.

Editors are subject to government approval through a cleverly-devised system of legal requirements. Newspapers have to apply for a publishing permit each year, and the minister in charge can reject an application for a variety of reasons. And he is not obliged to disclose these reasons.

Secondly, according to reports in newspapers like the Asian Wall Street Journal, the Prime Minister and his ministers meet regularly with top editors, briefing them on issues and a range of subjects from the government perspective, and "requesting" (read instructing) them to slant stories accordingly. Any wonder why, when BG Lee says something about James Gomez, it will be given the full treatment the next day?

I wonder how often Mr Lee and his people have been on the phone with editors during the elections? Will Singtel (run by his brother) give us a list of all the calls Mr Lee and his people have made on their mobile, office and home phones to editors?

In that sense, Singapore is worse off than many Third World nations which have a more vibrant Press. Examples: Philippines, many African nations, and even lowly Samoa.

MORE LATER....

Another predictable GE

2006-04-30T14:07:00.000+08:00

So the campaigning for the Singapore General Elections is in full swing!
Ahh... what exciting times. But with each election comes predictability. Here are just some of them.

PRECITABLE ISSUE NO. 1: RUN DOWN THE OPPOSITION
That's what the PAP is great at. Take a small issue and blow it up to gigantic proportion with the help of the local media – newspapers, TV and radio. Guess who run each of these corporations? Men and women linked to the PAP, of course.

PREDICTABLE ISSUE NO. 2: WE'RE THE GREATEST
A corollary to the above. But that's what the PAP likes to think of itself. "There is no one better than us. No one can do the job like we can" is their mantra.

Is it really? Think about the NKF debacle. Think about the billions of dollars wasted on Suzhou Industrial Park, the brainchild of the Greatest Prime Minister on Earth, Lee Kuan Yew. Think about all the problems in its dealings with Malaysia. Think of all the backdowns, the backflips, the wrong decisions in a multitude of areas, and you will begin to see the PAP for what it really is – fallible men and women, just like the Opposition.

PREDICTABLE ISSUE NO. 3: SUE THEM TO KINGDOM COME!
I cannot remember an election where the Opposition has not been sued. But this time, the PAP has outdone itself by suing the Opposition even before the campaigning began.

PREDICTABLE ISSUE NO. 4: SILENCE THE OPPOSITION
This is a corollary to the above. Is hauling that scoundrel T T Durai to court a very crafty move or is it sheer coincidence?

What is the urgency of charging him and other former officials now, just before the elections? Why couldn't the government wait until after the elections especially because this has been a long drawn out case?

The answer is simple: Because it means no one can comment on the case since the matter is now before the courts.