Upgrading: Hougang and Potong Pasir

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

An online petition was recently brought to my attention. It calls for upgrading to be afforded to Hougang and Potong Pasir with some impassioned pleas I truly felt moved to read. To show your support, click here or visit:

http://www.petitiononline.com/LUPtoAll/petition.html

In this light, I am re-posting an article I wrote on April 13th regarding upgrading. I also strongly urge everyone to press for upgrading to be given to the residents of these two constituencies. GE 2006 saw them standing up for something they deemed more important than lifts, playgrounds and shiny paint. They have shown us the meaning and possibility of democracy superceding economic bully tactics. They have given us a glimpse of sheer joy in our politics in celebrating the return of Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang to their constituencies. They have stayed with those who have a heart for serving them well, not quit for better opportunities elsewhere, and in so doing perhaps have shown us more of the Singaporean spirit than can be found in our NDP parades and Social Studies textbooks.

Now what are we going to do for them in return?

The PAP has promised to re-look its tactics and consider a 'softer' approach. This is an excellent time for them to back up their words with action.

Debunking Myths - 13/04/06

First of all, kudos to MediaCorp for airing the TV forum between journalists and MM Lee Kwan Yew last night, a forum that was memorable in particular because one fellow actually said "We just think the PAP is playing by unfair rules and is power crazy, what do you have to say to that?". I found that vastly amusing and it was a nice cap to my day. Unfortunately I proceeded to become irritated when the issue of Hougang and Potong Pasir arose and we heard the same, tired old argument in response from MM Lee about how a party has the right to favour its supporters.

What truly irks me many a time is how the PAP obfuscates and convolutes matters with their dogmatic legalism and seemingly rational rhetorical sophistry. This hides the heart of the matter and twists it into something else -- into self-serving, small-minded, petty manipulation of words to make it seem like they really are perfectly justified in everything they do. Let's look at what they've been saying about why they can effectively deny Potong Pasir and Hougang upgrading.

A party has the right to favour its supporters, just like a business would.

The reason why a business would favour its supporters is because of self-interest. The business, or indeed most other institutions, believes that it can achieve its own goals most effectively if it rewards those who are in favour of their organisation. The government is crucially and fundamentally different. Out of all institutions, it should be the one least characterized by self-interest. This is because the first and foremost duty of the government is to serve the people. A political party who is willing to sacrifice the interests of the citizens of the country in order to maintain its own political grip over the nation has shattered and perverted its priorities. Such a political party is not one who gains its mandate through a willingness and dedication to all Singaporeans. It is a political party who gains its mandate through favouritism and discrimination, alternating according to whichever best serves its own purposes and future.

Potong Pasir and Hougang residents deserve to be treated differently because they have made their choice to sacrifice a better living for the sake of having Opposition rule -- because of this choice, they are different from the rest of Singapore.

When a government takes into consideration the welfare of a nation it must take into consideration the welfare of all its peoples, regardless of their beliefs, as long as these beliefs do not jeopardize other people. The government's duty of care extends to everyone and does not have the right to discriminate against their moral and political choices. For a parallel example, let's just take their stand to its logical conclusion. If governments all around the world were to say tomorrow: "We will not upgrade the houses of Muslim-Malays", we would instinctively reject that as a repulsive and unjust policy, because all Muslim-Malays are entitled to their beliefs, their moral creeds and choices, and they are all part of our "One nation, one people, one Singapore". So the government must serve them too, if they have any respect whatsoever for their dignity and autonomy as human beings. Similarly here; Potong Pasir and Hougang residents have made a conscious and informed choice which has to do with their belief system. Their reasons may be varied -- perhaps they want more political vibrancy. Perhaps they feel more comfortable with a friendly face in power. Perhaps they genuinely think the Opposition candidates are more sincere and qualified. Regardless of their reasons, they are exercising their civic rights and liberties as citizens of a democracy to prioritize these reasons over other considerations. The government cannot discriminate against them because of this. Regardless of their choices, they are our citizens! And the government needs to take care of all our citizens. They need to protect all of us from terrorism, be concerned about how much can all of us afford healthcare, be willing to provide jobs for all of us. That's because we are one country. Such a discriminatory policy is only going to divide us along territorial lines, and insinuate that some people are more deserving citizens/all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

We know something is gravely wrong with democracy when people are penalized for having any power whatsoever in it. The whole point of having choices is that your choice matters, and can bring about your best welfare. Democracy becomes poisoned when people are punished for participating, punished for daring to think of themselves as members of a functioning democracy.

We need some new answers from the PAP, but first we need some new questions from ourselves, to ourselves, about what it means to be a citizen, and what it means to be a human being. Do you instinctively, in your mind and heart, without the trappings of their party rhetoric and official stands and legal codes, feel that what they are doing is ethical? Respectful to the human being? Fair, just, with the interests of the people foremost? We need moral outrage. We need to care because no one else will. The international media will write cursory reports on it and tsk-tsk behind our backs, but they are powerless to institute fundamental change. Look at how The Economist gets sued for damages each time they so much as mention a whiff of nepotism. If Singaporeans in Bukit Timah, or Marine Parade, don't care about what happens to Singaporeans in Potong Pasir or Hougang, then I have serious doubts on how much they truly deserve and appreciate their citizenship. Yes, we may point fingers at the PAP, but I think we first need to care. Are we too jaded to bother? Is it just an insider, intellectual ha-ha poor-people joke? If so, then that's a sad possibility to contemplate.

I wrote this article in the run-up to the elections. If you'd read the last paragraph, I suspect you might detect my frustration with how the people around me were responding, or rather, seemed not to be responding to the issue of upgrading. It seemed that mainstream media skirted carefully around the issue, and if letters were sent to the forums I didn't see any of them published. Were we all afraid to stand up and say: hey, wait, this is just wrong? Please take this chance now to lobby for what should be a basic entitlement of the members of those two constituencies. This is the least we can do to send a loud, clear signal to the PAP: Singaporeans think, feel and act a little more deeply than just for money.

GE 2011 will simply have to be run another way.

Posted at 11:55 am by gaylegoh


	Yap Swee Hoo June 19, 2006 12:35 PM PDT If there had been an effective and credible opp, they cld hv fought for -a) Members of Parl who hv vested interests in rent-controlled props to publicly declare their interests; or at least to the then PM; b) set a deadline for tenants and landlords to come to a compromise, failing which c) govt wld acquire the premises for a public purpose for general benefit, when both landlords and tenants wld be compensated in accordance with the existing practice. At the time, govt wld acquire props way below market price, which wld certainly induce landlords to come to more equitable terms with their tenants And e) rent control wld be lifted if a compromise is reached between landlord and tenant. In my view, these steps wld be much more equitable to the tenants in rent-controlled premises than the blanket lifting of the Rent Control Act, which must benefit the landlords at the expense of the tenants, many of whom cld hv been thrown out into the streets as a result!


	Yap Swee Hoo June 16, 2006 05:56 PM PDT Of course, if there had been an effective and credible opposition, this side of the tenant's plight cld hv been surfaced for a more balanced deal to be struck between the landlords and their tenants. As it stood, those landlords who owned rows of lrent-controlled props became multi-millionaires, some many times so, and at the tenants' expense. But, then, if there is no credible opp, who cares, and life must, of course, carry on!


	Yap Swee Hoo June 16, 2006 05:48 PM PDT If the ruling party becomes overly concerned to advance the interests of their own clique and cronies, this wld blind them to to the broader interests of the people at large as to be insensitive to them. An effective opp can also present the other side of the picture to ensure that certain particular interests are not overlooked. One area that I thot was wrong was to lift rent control when tenants whp paid rent-controlled rents had in fact paid huge coffee money to their landlords to enjoy their nominal rents. "Nominal", of course, vis-a-vis rents later on when they've spiralled upwards. By lifting rent control without landlords paying adequate compensation to the tenants meant an overnight bonanza for the landlords! Tenants, much poorer than their landlords, suddenly found themselves in the bind as they face upward revisions of their rents, to their dismay. One may ask if this is fair to the tenants! Obviously not!! And why shd govt interfere to benefit the landlords at the sore expense of the tenants? Someting seemed very remiss here. Or am i wrong?


	Yap Swee Hoo June 16, 2006 04:33 PM PDT PAP, let me clarify that in agreeing "substantially" with u, I mean only by way of a stronger and credible opp, going forward. I do not decry in the least that the PAP has a sterling track record so far. But it wld be good if there is a strong opp in the future as a moderating and balancing force, for the ruling party to be more sensitive and receptive to govern of the people and for them. Otherwise, they may be aloof and be concerned with the advancement of those in the ruling clique and their cronies!


	Yap Swee Hoo June 16, 2006 01:01 PM PDT Sorry. "plinter part" shd read as "splinter party" in my posting immediately below.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 16, 2006 12:59 PM PDT PAP, I agree substantially with u. But being just a voter is still very much NATO to me. It's hiding behind a thick screen, whilst asserting u're in the open! Think abt it! I'm also for a stronger opp over the long haul. That's why I respect Sylvia for her visible face among the opp ranks altho' she cld opt to do otherwise, as our many NATOs! And she's ready for the rough going ahead, if it shd come. Very courageous, indeed. But the opp really needs more direction as to where it's heading. First, they shd attempt a united front, which wld mean cutting 'edges'. And the one edge that they wld need to cut off wld be the Chee siblings, who hv been described in the press as being very much written off by the ppl. I agree with this assessment. Their party is now a plinter party at best, to the disadvantage of the opp if it remains aligned as a party to be counted among the opp parties. Secondly, the WP shd also distance itself from its former leader J who is another liability for his dismal political record. This way, thw WP can be viewed in a new light by the ppl, as a revitalised party with a truly new and rejuvenated leadership. Last but not least, it has to attract good and talented ppl into its ranks. While the Gomez affair may seem innocuous, it has its negative fallouts. My view is that he shd be sidelined by the WP for damage-control. Just thinking aloud...


	PAP June 15, 2006 06:14 PM PDT Yap, 15 years ago when Goh Chok Tong became PM, he said things will change and his government will be different from Lee Kuan Yew's government. I voted for PAP because I thought they really will change in social and political area. 15 years later, nothing changed and PAP still practise the same old high-handed tactics. Media is still not free. There is still fear to vote against PAP, many PAP MPs still come and go within a short term etc.... I have given PAP chance to change but it did not. It is time I look elsewhere. There is nothing wrong for you to continue support PAP but there is also nothing wrong for me to support Worker's Party. We each have our own reasons. This is what elections is about. But no one should be punished for supporting different political parties because we are all Singaporeans and we support differently because the election system allows us so. The upgrading issue from another angle can be seen as a punishment and that is what peeves many Singaporeans. If other countries offers us goodies to surrender without a fight, do we do so because that is the culture taught to us by PAP? We all know by history, the pioneer government will do well at the beginning but that does not guarantee it will do well in future. This is why systems are needed to check the government when it starts degenerating and presently, we do not have that. Track record applies but PAP personnel will change with time. When personnel changes, track record is no longer valid because the batch that did well has already left. I will feel safer with two equally strong parties than having just one. This is why I repeatedly say I am playing my role as a voter. This is not NATO. You are also playing a role as a PAP voter and nothing wrong with that too. 4 million Singaporeans have their own private reasons who to vote for so lets respect their decisions. In this case, it is not right to be biased with residents of HG and PP.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 15, 2006 04:59 PM PDT Sorry to be a spoil-sport again. But u don't really need to hv a change of party to bring abt desirable reforms. So long as the ruling party has its ears close to the ground to listen and act in the best interests of the ppl, it will continue to win the ppl's mandate. And so long as the opposition remains inneffectual as a discredited opposition, it will stay in the doldrums. As presently, the PAP has a sterling track record, and it continues to forge strongly ahead as it tries its level best to stay ahead of the opposition. Our opposition has improved, again undoubtedly, but it is still very far behind for its dismal past. And unless u hv good and talented ppl ready to sacrifice of themselves to join it, its future will remain bleak. Bear in mind the PAP is a dynamic and self-rejuvenating party with the best brains, to all intents and purposes, within its ranks. It'll be a very high order for our opp to emulate it. Not, of course, that it cannot be achieved. But, then, with so many NATOs around, cld the opp meet up with the challenges indeed? On deep pockets, u pay top dollars for top lawyers! That's what meritocracy is all abt! Nothing wrong. Even communist countries find that human beings are not just equal to one another. If u're born an African, that's that, and u may not even grow up to be a teenager! Conversely, if u're born into royalty and so on. And it's chasing after more dollars that's very much the driving force in human society,- everywhere! It's been like that thru' the ages!!


	PAP June 15, 2006 04:37 PM PDT Yap, You are right for now. This is why I am playing my part as a voter to help another party to grow. I prefer to buy some insurance rather than only have one choice as government. Worker's Party has said it cannot forever remain as opposition and one day hope to govern Singapore. I am willing to give them that chance, just like how our ancestors gave PAP the chance when it was an Opposition. Like a consumer, I prefer more than one choice when buying the same product or else I will be constantly held to ransom. Your are right, until we see a change of government, then can we see changes to Singapore, society, habits, precedents etc. For now, since we have no systems to control and limit actions of PAP, we can only depend on their integrity and honesty which is a thin thread to rely on. For upgrading, there is no system to make PAP as government to be equal to all. We can only rely on their morality and logic sense of right, wrong and fairness to do their job. The system of law has room for improvement. I am not a lawyer as my expertise is in other areas. But I do feel evolution of the law systems to help out in cases whereby deeper pockets play a less significant role in winning or losing a case. TT Durai has deeper pockets of NKF that why he won against two individuals. He lost to SPH because SPH has deeper pockets. These examples has shown Singapore law systems has room for improvement. We cannot allow our judicial system to degenerate until "who has more money, who win " situation. We also cannot allow "Who got more powerful backing whose words will be the truth" situation which is prevalent in Singapore society today.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 15, 2006 04:03 PM PDT Not quite true a ruling party can do what it wants to benefit itself only. In the modern context and with an educated population like S'pore, it has to meet the needs of the people. And very much so! It speaks well for the PAP that it has been voted - not just being in power - in every General Election! This won't be possible if the PAP had ruled out of touch with, and against the ppl! If the courts were wrong in earlier NKF suits, much also depends on who the Defence Counsels were. As a minister (I think - or am I wrong here) once said, if u pay peanuts, u get monkeys! And when TT Durai took on SPH, he took on a mammoth with funds enuff to engage a mammoth of a Defence Counsel! Courts even in developed countries hv made wrong decisions. Being human organs, they're fallible, undoubtedly. But it does not follow at all that the judicial system is therefore to be cast aside simply for these errors in judgements! The courts decide on the evidence as laid out before them by the counsels for both the plaintiffs and the defendants! As for evolution of counter-checking systems, sure, they're good and I'm all for them. But as I said, these are for the long haul, whereas we're referring to the upgrading of the 2 opp wards, which is in the immediate term. For now, we'll hv to accept the situation as it is. No other way, I'm afraid. And, of course, if u've got great ideas, put them into action. Let's not be NATO!


	PAP June 15, 2006 03:29 PM PDT Yap, Your theory is base on whoever got power, the party/person can do whatever that benefits itself. Present Singapore society works that way like Ancient China and we all know that will head to disaster one day. Like I said earlier, I do not support this theory because it will destroy Singapore one day. Nazi Party came into power through proper elections but because it was too dominant and no serious opposition, it took Germany into a path of destruction and suffering.Nazi Party too also use strong arm tactics to discourage and curb opposition until it became redundant. PAP is very close to that. Presently, Singapore lack systems to govern the governing party on what it can do and cannot do with state money. In other countries, the courts can rule out the governing party from using state money for benefits of its own party especially during time of elections. It could be disguised in the way of goodies. Singapore is like NKF now. Successful but lack internal systems and checks to make sure drastic usage of state money is not allowed. Everyone knows how dangerous that can be. It will no longer be donations squandered but our assets, CPF and reserves squandered. Do we want another NKF to happen before we wake up? I rather trust the evolution of systems than the "integrity, honesty and trust of individuals and party". I will rather put my faith in setting up of proper systems than the integrity and honesty of individuals even if the courts repeatedly rule them to be honest and trustworthy. Wasnt TT Durai thought to be "honest and trustworthy" when he sued two former colleagues for defamation? Our law systems erred in that defamation suit in the sense it supported the person with deep pockets and deep support rather than help the two individuals who were spilling the truth. It had exposed how fragile and unbalance our First World law systems was especially those two poor guys were robbed of their entire savings in paying TT Durai the damages. The laws and courts ruled TT Durai to be clean and honest but today we all know it was not the real truth. This habit of defamation suits in Singapore society is a result of PAP setting a bad example and precedents. Singapore have many ills and one of them is serious lack of auto-checking systems. PAP will never implement them as it is disadvantageous to them but it is advantageous to Singapore. I will help Worker's Party grow as a voter because PAP have already grown up. Singapore does not belong to one person or one party no matter how big the past achievements are. It belongs to every Singaporean.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 15, 2006 02:55 PM PDT Good response, PAP. Except the fact remains that the ruling party pulls the purse-strings, whatever the opposition or those for the opp may contend or wish for. Yes, of course, I myself wld also like to see a credible opp in time. But we're talking abt upgrading of the 2 opp wards, which is in the immediate term. And for the immediate term until a credible opp is in sight, we'll hv to accept the situation as presently. Not indulge in wishful thinking, which is why I think Ah Lee has valid points that can merit attention, going forward. As for history, lessons of the past cut both ways. They show the things to do, and not to do. How this is interpreted wld depend on who wields the power! And no ruling party wld interpret the lessons of history such that it wld erode or impinge adversely on their power base!


	PAP June 15, 2006 01:53 PM PDT Hello Yap, You are wrong because history usually records mistakes so that people will not repeat them again in future. Politics and elections in the other countries maybe cold,unfeeling and pragmatic but that does not mean Singapore should follow the same path. Singapore is an independent country and should possess its own political and ethical values. If the other countries elections have an uneven level playing field does not necessarily mean Singapore also must follow and have an uneven level playing field. Why not also follow other countries in other areas and allow porn, free media, free speech etc. Why have double standards? Did not PAP resist following other countries in many areas ?? Singapore is ill in political and social advancements. Other countries have the same illness does not justify Singapore's illness is normal and should be allowed. This is why I disagreed with LKY when he quote USA,UK and Malaysia as countries that also have uneven level playing field to justify PAP's excuses for uneven level playing field. These are just my thoughts and you are free to disagree because we live in a democratic and free Singapore whereby everyone is entitled to their own views and nobody is really right or wrong including people in PAP. By the way, I voted PAP for every election but have change to voting for Worker's Party because I feel Singapore do genuinely need to advance in other areas besides monetary and the only way to do that is to break PAP's monopoly over Singapore in all areas of life. I would support Worker's Party or any other party until one party is strong enough to challenge PAP to be next government. In short, I wish to be part of something that grows. PAP has become stagnant and fat. Once this Balance is reached then my descendants can be different kind of Singaporeans then the Singaporean my grandparents,parents and me had been. I am not voting for myself but voting for Singapore and her future.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 15, 2006 01:19 PM PDT Just to add: politics, indeed, is insensitive. Read any history book! If anyone hopes for wishy-washy sentiments, better forget them when it comes to realpoliticks!! So let's grapple with the brass-tacks in hard reality, and not indulge in day-dreaming that gets nobody anywhere! Cos the ruling party's not going to listen, and the ppl are not going to support u!


	Yap Swee Hoo June 15, 2006 12:55 PM PDT So, Sideliner, u can't take opposing views, right? Everyone must concur with u to be ok? Let me put it mor succinctly. The ruling party, as the ppl's rep by majority vote, wld hv the privilege, like it or not, to decide on how the money for upgrading wld be disbursed, so long as it will be disbursed. And they cld do it on priority basis to favour their 67% supporters, again like it or not. But Ah Lee has a point that upgrading shd not be used as a carrot in general elections. And I quite agree with him on the other pts he's made in his posting. They're sensible enuff. Simply cos some of u who hv voted opposition and stay in the 2 opp wards now face the prospect of the ruling party's decision to accord lower upgrading priority is not a reason or ground that the PAP's intended priority program is off-key!


	Ah Lee June 14, 2006 05:48 PM PDT Realistically, upgrade should be a national policy, distinctly apolitical for any government of the day or future to work on. It is totally a nonsensical policy for a political party to openly offer S$100M as an upgrade carrot to a specific constituency during a GE and subtly tying it to some kind of loyalty. The Police Department or Election Department should put a stop to this kind of pander … ban it totally. This is one chip and dice game that will not benefit all in the longer term. You start throwing fat carrots (fortunately no takers) and what else will you have to throw the next round … maybe fat ang pows worth much more than 100M. Who can throw, who cannot throw … I say this is a banned item. No need for endless tok tok tok. When people are falling off staircases or longkangs, I am sure caring Singaporeans will come forward to help, so will caring Government of the day.


	Sideliner June 14, 2006 12:29 AM PDT I hope I don't see any more posts by a certain "Yap Swee Ho" here anymore. He obviously is not sensitive, if not blind to the real issues here. He appears to opposing for the sake of opposing people - quite clever, I might add, but insensitive. Don't spoil the mood OK?


	PAP June 13, 2006 04:48 PM PDT This evil upgrading tactic is to nullify the "PAP can be government but increase opposition parliament seats " tactic so that it makes a difference whether you have ratio PAP 82 : AP 2 or PAP 45: AP 39. By using this upgrading tactic, every voter will "protect own backside" and vote PAP or else PAP will not give them pipes, lifts, car parks etc. Now you have 2 AP seats. If you have 39 AP seats, all 39 seats will miss out on goodies. This Upgrading Tactic is the only way to prevent more AP seats because Singaporeans wants more AP seats but keep PAP as government. But at what ratio ??? The ratio question worries PAP the most.


	PAP June 13, 2006 02:16 PM PDT If anyone here feel grave injustice about issues concerning PAP, then only you yourselves can change the situation. Nobody can help you. Take concrete action by voting PAP out or join Worker's Party to contribute in any role. Take action, bitching in forums, petitions, blogs etc has no impact. Complete removal of PAP and its organs is the only way out for Singapore and Singaporeans.


	Mark June 13, 2006 02:08 AM PDT http://forums.delphiforums.com/kelongsg/messages/?msg=6.1


	Mark June 13, 2006 12:28 AM PDT http://urbanrant.blogspot.com/


	Mark June 12, 2006 09:06 PM PDT http://onlinehammer.proboards76.com/index.cgi


	Alice June 12, 2006 07:42 PM PDT http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3689557191707756526&q=nus+forum


	Alice June 12, 2006 07:35 PM PDT It is better for PAP to separate itself from business, GLCs, unions and grassroots. http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages


	Yap Swee Hoo June 12, 2006 05:35 PM PDT Sorry, my short memory here. Shd be "RS Milne", not "JS Milne" in regard to my email immediately below.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 12, 2006 05:30 PM PDT John, read JS Milne's authoritative work on "Electoral behaviour". In established democracies, a voter's right can count as little as the outcome of a coin toss! That's cos the opposition is not really different from the ruling party for equal credibility as perceived by the ppl. If we want to hv an effective opposition, that's the way to go! No more, no less.


	john riemann soong June 12, 2006 05:04 PM PDT YSH: it was an analogy. My point was, voting for checks and balances and separation of powers might not be a bread and better issue in itself, but it guarantees you will be able to bring up a bread and butter issue in the future. Perhaps I better use an investment analogy. You have a 100,000 dollars. You could use it to buy all you want, or you could choose to invest in something that doesn't immediately benefit you, but ensures you can get more benefits in the future. Treat your vote like it's worth a 100,000 dollars, because if you make the wrong vote next election, you might not have a chance to vote several decades down the line. If you happen to die before then, then your children won't. That's how important casting the right vote is. Cheap bribes going to sway then...? Nah. Oh, the entire thing about election deposits and their forfeits needs to be reformed. We all agree that walkovers are generally bad, so if there's a threat of a walkover, then perhaps there might still be a deposit, but without threat of forfeit.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 12, 2006 04:22 PM PDT Heh, PAPless, come down to earth! Malysia next door has Genting Highlands; they hvn't gone down the drain cos of it! There're also the race-course, TOTO/4D/Sports booths everywhere; plus fruit-machines in our numerous clubs - all around tempting us. But the casinos at our IRs are just a feature among numerous other things on offer come their completion. They're mega-attractions intended to be of global attention and interest, and quite OB to the average working S'porean. Anyway, no one can stop anyone, even now, from dissipating his money recklessly at the races, jackpots, even TOTO/4D/Sports! Or even the sharemarket. Let's not bluff ourselves it's just the casinos at the IRs that will be degenerating factor!


	Alice June 12, 2006 03:39 PM PDT go down to Worker's Party HQ to join as volunteer. It maybe is a small role but at least I play a role and contribute instead of just using Petitions, forums, blogs etc. Real Action is needed... The Workers' Party Open House :Time: 8 - 9.30pm:Venue: 216 G, #02-03, Syed Alwi Road:Every Monday


	PAPless June 12, 2006 03:24 PM PDT the glitter & optimism of the IR seems overpowering. And makes some of us guilty.. that we should hv supported this. But all that glitter is not gold.. it remains to be seen that this is a good move. Or a disastrous move in having built a nation that has unspoken high standards of integrity & morals, we succumbed to temporal gain. My opinion is that we should have stayed the course & develop the education & medical hubs and Philip Yeo's AStar initiatives. These are more lasting & gives a better foundation for our future generations. The fallout from the casino will be felt later..in broken homes, lowered morals and develop the unofficial loan shark industry besides the many obvious vices that will come our way. The PAP has lost the moral ground. And so have our people. We have been very stupid with the vote! My feeling, if we go the Casino way..it is not too far fetch that we also become the flesh centre of the region in no time. Where will it stop? If our principles are determined by the lust and glitter needs of the day, we will be most disappointed people in the end where there is no moral compass.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 12, 2006 03:20 PM PDT John, but we're not in genie land. We're in a land of hardheaded business people who aren't that stupid as to be blind to the other side of the coin. So we need to be balanced in our approach to things, to give credit where credit is due, and to dwell on specifics where we disagree. For instance, I'm much in favour of the Progress Package to be given whenever our surplus govt funds permit. To me, it's hogwash that we'll degenerate into a welfare state if we do so, as some may think. I'm also in favour of upgrading the 2 opp wards as a matter of principle. But I accept that, given the total picture, the PAP, as the ruling party voted in by the people, does hv the privilege to exercise its prefernce for the 67% who voted for them. I'm in favour of a stronger opposition, but it must spruce up in more ways than one to be credible, not least for the more capable of the ppl themselves to come forward to join and support it. This is the crux of things, and it's up to the opposition to devise ways and means to attract talent, and to invite talents where it spots them, like what the PAP is doing. More than anything, the opposition must be loyal and must be seen by S'poreans to be loyal. This requires integrity and honesty on the part of its members; and integrity and honesty can mean giving credit where credit is due, for its magnanimity to be appreciated. For instance, Sylvia congratulating the PAP on its success in the GE, at the same time saying, "We'll be back!". One good way forward for the opposition is to make itself mor visible and accessible. How, where, why to join them - much publicity is required for the opposition to impact more positively on the ppl. Of course, much footwork wld also be called for, and so on. Just lying low till the next GE or merely posting on internet where not many of the ppl bother to enter and read is not enuff. Indeed, I myself learned abt this site from a friend who emailed me; and there're not many as kaypoh as me to want to join in the fun!


	JAcky June 12, 2006 03:15 PM PDT http://nofearsingapore.blogspot.com/


	JAcky June 12, 2006 03:13 PM PDT Hello Curious, Nobody is born to govern. Everyone has a learning curve including PAP. When PAP first became government, they too make many mistakes. Until today, PAP is still making mistakes but less and maybe their mistakes are less broadcast. Didnt PAP screw up the economy before? When you got your first job, did you have a track record to prove you are worthy of your job? Everyone needs to start somewhere. Worker's Party should be given their chance to govern Singapore one day. If they cannot make it, they will be voted out. This is what elections are for. If we support WP's growth and have two choices for government. Isnt it better than having PAP as the only choice? It is chicken and egg question. What comes first ?? Given Singaporeans we produced under PAP regime are kiasi and kiasu, they will never join Alternative Parties unless got 90% chance of voted in. If we want to see real concrete changes to our society, only way is to see a Non-PAP Government. Then your children and grandchildren can become different Singaporeans from the ones you, your parents and your grandparents are. PAP has done well for Singapore economically but has has F grade for social and political advancements. It is time Singapore move on to the next phase of development or we will remain stagnant forever. PAP must go to achieve that. PAP have done their job. It is time to let Worker's Party do theirs.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 12, 2006 01:40 PM PDT Hi, Gayle, the PAP has continued to show its prowess in promoting the national welfare, as evidenced by its determined pursuit of the IR projects that will undoubtedly put us even more prominently on the world map, small red dot that we are. Let's give due credit to the PAP for this; I very much doubt our opposition as it now is can do anything anywhere near this! As for the latest IPS findings quoted by u, the fact that we're no longer concerned with bread and butter issues does not detract, in the least, from the credit due to the PAP. It's because of their fabulous track record that we hv arrived, to be longer concerned with such basic needs as to hanker now for "checks and balances". Not that we don't need some checks and balances. We do need them, of course. But let's be fair to give credit where credit is due. Otherwise, we're not credible, to any impartial observer! Going for lunch now. Bye, and thanks for yr response, Gayle.


	john riemann soong June 12, 2006 01:33 PM PDT A genie grants you several wishes. You could wish for extravagant things, "bread and butter issues", or you could also ask for more wishes. This is why checks and balances are important. After all, you may vote for bread and butter now, but who says you will get that 50 years into the future? Why do you feed your family after all, your children's children are have no guarantee they won't starve? Thus metapolitical issues are quite pragmatic. Asking for them to be resolved is like asking for more wishes, to use a hackneyed analogy: it guarantees you can always ask for other things. Not caring about checks and balances because one cares about "bread and butter issues" is like using up all of your wishes to fulfill something finite - very temporal. Then, you've only voted in an oligarchy, whose power is cemented in for a long, long time. And then they can take away your bread and butter and you will have nothing to do about it.


	gayle June 12, 2006 01:21 PM PDT Hi, YSH- You're right that Singaporeans vote for stability, a roof over their heads and bread and butter on their tables. But two things, 1) Doesn't that mean that the PAP should win votes by showing us that they can continue to attain this for us in terms of GDP growth, employment, etc, which I am sure they are capable of doing, instead of using threats like not giving upgrading? 2) "Bread and butter" issues, as the latest IPS study found, were not the biggest concern of Singaporeans. It was "fairness" and "checks and balances" -- not just wishy washy stuff but a desire to see a balancing effect on the power that the PAP has, which may mean not just voting for the biggest paycheck for Singaporeans. I think it's as valid and pragmatic a concern as any.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 12, 2006 12:37 PM PDT One more: "abstute" shd be "astute".


	Yap Swee Hoo June 12, 2006 12:33 PM PDT Just to correct 2 small typos in my posting immediately below. "falaely" shd read as "falsely"; "Sylvis" shd be "Sylvia". My apologies.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 12, 2006 12:26 PM PDT Curious, I concur with much of what u've said. I must say u've got your feet firmly grounded and u've hit the nail squarely on its head with your abstute observations on the opposition. On PAPless responses to my email, let me just say that where the PAP is right in their stands, there is nothing wrong to repeat them and to support their contentions. Otherwise, we'll be opposing for the sake of opposition per se! So I'm giving no excuses for backing the PAP for their innumerable contributions which hv made our nation what she is today! Kudos to the PAP, certainly!! As for the PAP walkovers, it's not enuff to say - and falaely - that anyone has been deprived of voting. The hard facts are: a) these wards are the PAP strongholds and recognised as such by the opposition as well. No opposition candidate wld want to lose his or her deposit to be defeated miserably to stand in these wards! b) the opposition does not hv good or credible ppl to stand in these wards, due to a lot of hot air but no guts to stand up to be counted among our ppl who claim to be in opposition. To repeat, just see the anonymity of the contributors to this blog as if the sky's falling down on them if they're honest with their identities! If that's the stuff our opposition is made of with barely anyone like Low Thia Kiang, Chiam, Sylvis or Gayle coming forward, all this brouhaha is hot gas and nothing more! c) it's only recently that the opposition shows signs of stirring. As it still is, it's a poor alternative to the PAP. And I repeat, S'poreans are not stupid when it comes to voting. We've got our feet firmly grounded and we're not floating in air with wishy-washy dreams of this and that. We need to eat, hv a roof over our head, provide for the good welfare of our families and ourselves, etc etc, and to look and hope for more improvement on these fronts with the party we vote into power. We're not selfish to do this, as PAPless seems to assert. It's life! Aw, shucks, be real, man!!


	Curious June 12, 2006 01:49 AM PDT JAcky, I don't know enough about Suharto and Indonesia to comment intelligently on why Indonesia was in turbulence after Suharto fell. I agree somewhat with your point about Singapore's ability to survive without PAP in control. Singapore's civil service is highly competent and I expect that the PAP will be a responsible opposition. But I have reservations with the tacit assumption that any of our opposition parties will be equally competent to govern. We may like some of the proposals they make. I think we should also look at the whole package offered, including leadership quality, unity within the party, experience, willingness to listen to criticisms, etc. And, I disagree that economic performance is independent of political leadership. If you ask Americans about US presidents in recent history, you will find fairly good consensus on who did a bad job for the US economy.


	JAcky June 11, 2006 11:31 PM PDT Mah Bow Tan says CCCs are not politicised and comprises of constituents of the living area.He thinks Sporeans are really dumb and cannot think. If it is not politicised, then why all CCCs in Singapore choose PAP as their advisors especially in HG and PP whereby the PAP advisor is not even elected by the people of the constituency. I remember the soup man, Chairman of Potong Pasir CCC do not even stay in Potong Pasir. This Mah Bow Tan lies without even blinking an eye.


	john riemann soong June 11, 2006 11:18 PM PDT You know what the issue is? Perhaps it's even intentional. People want to become doctors, lawyers, CEOs, entrepreneurs, but rarely have I seen ambitions for journalism, although they exist (in one former classmate, for example). Perhaps we clamp down on the humanities so much (intentionally, perhaps?) that what few that's left for journalism are easily intimidated. But then again, what's the difference between a lawyer and a journalist? A journalist seeks to argue and present the truth (or perhaps, her point of view in an op-ed), while a lawyer seeks to argue a case for his client, even if he knows the truth is otherwise. So, if we want to see credible news sources, we should start to encourage our friends and peers into journalism. We should appreciate those who enter the field (and as we know, many journalists don't practice censorship of their own free will, they just don't want to be fired.) How much do we pay our journalists? Perhaps we should organise a democratic journalism fund? Thus we can prove that community-organised fundraising attempts are better than seedy attempts raised by some shadowy private corporation cough cough. Of course, the passion for journalism should be more than just the money. But then again, some people might have the passion to write about the truth, but they choose to be part of the civil service because a) parental pressure b) not wanting to choose between food/housing and passion for the job. Parents should also revise their pressures. As can be seen from i-do-not-speak.blogspot.com, often times the parental attitudes and pressures for their children's careers unwittingly becomes a tool for the PAP.


	ali baba June 11, 2006 10:31 PM PDT other than gayle and other popular blogsites there is no where to voice your dissenting voices. the press is too timid to voice its independent voice.


	JAcky June 11, 2006 10:03 PM PDT If PAP collapse, Singapore and economy will not collapse if PAP did its job and ensure economic fundamentals, rules and regulations have been set up prior to PAP's fall. It is PAP's duty while as government to ensure a system is there in order to prevent Singapore from having turbulence if PAP falls. PAP must start preparing Singapore for life without PAP. This is PAP's moral obligation as the government. Indonesia is a good example. Suharto did not prepare Indonesia for life without him. What Suharto did was prepare himself for life without Indonesia. This was why Indonesia was in turbulence when Suharto fell. Investors and civil servants I know have told me they would prefer to have a 2 party system so that they would have no need for overreliance on only PAP. Even investors and civil servants wants a choice too. PAP can go but please leave Singapore alone. Rich developed countries like Europe, Japan and US have shown the way that political parties do not directly have any relevance to economies and development of the nation.


	Curious June 11, 2006 08:42 PM PDT "When the PAP is out, the economy will collapse" is an unlikely scenario, at least for now. A more like scenario is a few more opposition MPs in 2011, then a few more in another 5 years, and when the opposition is strong enough to take over the government, none of us are around anymore. Politicians will be talking about the post-2035 voters. Anyway, it's a nice dream to aim for.


	Mah Bow Tan June 11, 2006 08:29 PM PDT PAP's tactic of starving people in Hougang and Potong Pasir into submisson will not work.


	Kenny June 11, 2006 08:04 PM PDT Lucky Tan, What the hell do you mean by the "correct box"!?! I guess you don't care about your other fellow PAP supporters living in HG and PP huh. But hey.. who cares as long as your area is upgraded isn't it?? Bloody selfish, narrow-minded PAP sheep..


	Mah Bow Tan June 11, 2006 07:46 PM PDT 15 years ago when Goh Chok Tong become PM, he say PAP will change and Singapore will change. Everything will be new and fresh. BUT 15 years later, nothing have change. PAP still as dirty as ever and Spore issues remain the same. Now Lee Hsien Loong say the same thing. Start afresh. I will not bellieve PAP ever again. 15 years is too long to see the results. PAP will never change.Mah Bow Tan says Singapore money is PAP money because PAP earns them for Singapore so PAP can use for PAP's sake. TT Durai also earn alot of money for NKF, see what happen???...NKF money is DURai money....what did we get???...ABUSE !!......this is the kind of mentality PAP always have...vote them out is the only concrete solution.... Singapore elections cannot forever be about bread-butter issues. Maybe 40 years ago bread-butter issues is main subject. but 40 years later remain main subject then something is really wrong with spore. this means we have not progress anywhere at all and is stagnant.....there should be other main issues in elections.....


	PAPless June 11, 2006 04:49 PM PDT the exasperating problem with singaporeans is that we only talk but come 2011,the same will happen unless we start educating voters besides good proposals frm the opp, policies,good people, etc..also, strategically, which will be what the Opp can make the big difference here, educate people abt their rights, that their vote really count, not just to put a govt into power, but to speak for what they wish to see changed & not be cowed under the threat that the economy will collapse when the PAP is out (they will not be so easily ousted anyway..even if they lose more than 1 GRCs, they will still be the majority). The way it is, it didnt make anymore difference to those who are affected anyway without job or security. The future is not any brighter - no one, not even the PAP can guarantee that..so what do we actually lose?? What will be the likely scenario? More mess, less co ordination betw ministries (may even be better for citizens, actually), more info on failures that can no longer be hidden from the public,etc. In all, its the PAP that will lose grip & control...as for the economy -may go up or down...in a free market...not govt control anyway....so no difference. If jobs are lost...the PAP cant do anything anyway except to exhort you to change your line...and give some token hope by getting the ministries to co ordinate job placements - commercial companies can do that anyway..As to PSA, NOL,SIA etc...they can continue to fail/succeed ...e.g PAP cannot even get Australia to get the new routes after so much backward bending & concessions from Spore..PAP gave away so much but got nothing back...the FTA,etc.....so what has changed???


	Idiot June 11, 2006 04:43 PM PDT I hope to get my chance to vote in the next world. May be my great grandchildren will get a chance to vote. Hope they are more lucky.


	john riemann soong June 11, 2006 10:07 AM PDT What about those 900,000 people who didn't get to vote? That was more than the votes for the PAP in itself (only 747,000 voted for the PAP). Through talking we have to demand that walkovers are abolished, requirements laxed, (as well as deposits). Ultimately, an organisation of a movement is beyond just elections. The power of the people can be expressed through other ways. Perhaps it would be too soon to suggest any major unrest, but we have reserve abilities. We as the people, are the consumers of the nation, and thus we have a right to stop buying (boycott). We are the workers of the nation and have a right to stop working (strike). The government also happens in one way or another prevent common Singaporeans from going down into the sea and making salt for ourselves. Perhaps it's time we do. Speech - the exercise of basic speech - is one of the basic tools of civil disobedience. In the case when the government clamps down of freedom of speech, talk IS action. When it is widely disseminated throughout the internet, it has the potential to become effective. When 85% of Singaporean political internat material favours the opposition, then it creates a very ominous environment for the PAP, in which the youth will gladly identify with. Do the PAP members blog? Have they reached out to the youth? Do they take the time to discuss issues online individually? Do they go from blog to blog, friend to friend, to convince people of their aim? Have I seen a blog like this for the PAP, excluding the satirical ones? But, many dissenters against the PAP do. There are some who also defend the status quo. But the more talk we have - it proves one thing - how silly the laws are, either because it shows that we have "social responsibility" by the ability not to degenerate into incendiarics, or social empowerment comes directly ouf it. We might not want to return to the heyday of the 1960s, but there are many things to consider. In the end, this talk - this recreation of the Singaporean political culture online, will eventually lead to reform of Singaporean politics.


	Simon June 11, 2006 04:20 AM PDT If talking/complain/petition about it is all that one is willing to do, then nothing has changed. its not the first time since somebody has complained about the govt. people have been complaining for donkey years in the coffee shops, on the streets, to their families. talking about it on a blog just brings it to cyberspace, nothing will change because no concrete action is taken. the govt. can just continue to brush aside your complaints and petitions. what are you going to do about it that makes a difference, that changes the policy, or are you going to wait for the govt. to do it for you. i'm sure most of the pple who post on this blog feel that there is something wrong with the current situation. and if the govt. is as bad as some have painted it out to be, then maybe one could consider join the opposition? vote for the opposition? if you joins the opposition and campaign at the ward that your house is located at, then confirm you will get a chance to vote.


	Simon June 11, 2006 04:02 AM PDT Dear OrnateGhost You said “Is it lawful for a government to make such decisions based on political allegiance? Is it just? Intuitively, the answers to the above are a resouding NO. If it is not lawful nor just, then it follows that the pact between citizens of an opposition ward with the government is no longer valid. Put it simply, if the govt is unlawful then why do the citizens have to stick with the law? Lawfulness is the whole point, and it starts from the top.” From your statements, you agree that the govt. is unlawful, thus by your reasoning, you do not have to obey the law. Thus I asked u to go out and try breaking the law that is my point. i'm not asking you to go out and find the consequences like CSJ, i'm asking you are willing to stick by your words, which is not to obey the law because the govt. is unlawful. as you rightfully pointed out "The question is really what we, as tax-paying citizens, are going to do about it." will you do as you say or just say only


	PAPless June 10, 2006 10:29 PM PDT Hope WP will push for Point 4 among others. This lay the foundation of our young to know their rights/obligation as citizens. The present National Education has done some way to educate our young on the history & policies that came to be...also the harmony rules with regard to race, religion,etc. What they need to bring it further is the education of the rights as citizens, highlighting key facts of the constitution as to responsibilities and obligation as citizens. Surprisingly, quite a number of older/non-educated citizens (perhaps even some from those 65' first voters i suspect) do not know their rights...i overheard an old grandmother telling all her family members to vote PAP or else they will be in trouble (not to talk about complicity in coercion). She was really very fearful that any of them voted anything except the lightning symbol - its the kind of fear from ignorance.


	Curious June 10, 2006 09:55 PM PDT Someone brought up the subject of party manifesto, and specifically mentioned the differences between those of WP and PAP. It is interesting to make a comparison. To make this brief, I will summarise the main points on the subject of education. WP 1) Replacement of the streaming system with a multi-tiered advancement system 2) More balanced allocation of resources between elite and neighborhood schools 3) The government should foot 90% of tertiary education costs 4) A more rounded education that includes teaching of constitution, rights and obligations of citizens, etc. PAP 1) Offer more educational choices, enhance normal course, develop an area of excellence in every school 2) Do more for students with special needs 3) Set up 3 ITE colleges, build relationships between polytechnics and specialized foreign universities, provide top-quality and affordable university education I have taken the liberty of taking out the details from WP's proposals which may be read at http://www.wp.sg/party/manifesto_2006.htm. While the WP wants a revision of some educational policies, the PAP basically wants to continue with present policies. I must congratulate the WP for writing its proposal in such concrete terms. Although I can empathize with these ideals, I don't think they can get through a parliament where WP has few friends. However, I hope that WP will at least table them for discussion. It will also be interesting to hear what the WP has to say about PAP's proposals.


	PAPless June 10, 2006 05:22 PM PDT Quoted Yap: MM LKY was right to say that no ruling party wld want to help the opposition to win. SM GCT was also correct to say that preference wld be given to pro-PAP wards. Nothing wrong in their statements as we're talking abt pragmatism in politics. But having said this, the PAP shd continue to engage the ppl of the 2 opposition wards to build rapport and resolve problems. More perhaps, than in pro-PAP wards in the bblical sense of 'the lost sheep'. And upgrading of the 2 wards shd also be given their due consideration. However, we shd not go overboard to do anything that wld affect S'pore's reputation and standing as a politically stable, safe and sound haven. Ans: You are swallowing bait, hook & sinker what the PAP says. I can only say you dont really think very much. This has nothing to do with stability, as they made you to think or swallow in your case. Seems you swallow & repeat everything the PAP says without much discernment. I can only say sorry we hv these sort of citizens, who worry abt his/her property price so as not to rock the boat..abt so called stability & dents that are mere cover for the real issues at hand. In reality, the vote speaks & really counts. We should hv been more daring in our support & what we think is right at the last election. Petitions get us nowhere but i change my mind- i will support but knowing it brings only moral support but no real change.


	PAPless June 10, 2006 05:10 PM PDT Quoted Yap: Thor666, long or short manifesto is not the point. But substance wld count. The PAP has been in power for so long, there're few issues that they've not faced and resolved; and their track record speaks eloquently, as against the record of our opp., which is dismal. Action speaks louder than words, and it speaks very loudly for the PAP vis-a-vis their short manifesto. Ans: Wonder if u took a look at the PAP manifesto. It is full of pictures & bullshit - nothing sincere. What track record would u expect of the opp that is gagged?? Chiam does not even get a proper office. U think they or any parties can act without a permit?? You are being very naive. Quoted Yap: It's imp that the opp does not merely focus on emotive issues to win over the ppl. S'poreans are an educated lot, and we do think even out of the box, as can be seen from the postings here. Who are we to think those out there are less smart? Ans: where were u in the last election? didn't you hear anything from the opp?? Quoted Yap: So to be credible, the opp shd a) have good & talented ppl to join. How? b) be credible in tabling issues in Parl. Think thru' issues and back their proposals with solid facts, not wishy-washy rhetoric. Ans: (yawn)..what are u repeating?? something so obvious to everyone except yourself?? Quoted Yap: As I said, S'poreans not stupid, u know! Ans: seems there is an exception here. You seem to be stating the obvious most of the time. As I said before...didnt you read or hear anything??? Quoted Yap: c) be connected with the ground, for feedback. Filter the relevant from the irrelevant. For instance, the opp arguing that HDB flats cost rather cheap to build, discounting location, existing mortgages, etc - do they want prop prices to dive to everyone's heavy loss? Phew!! d) play by the rules. Ans: play by whose rule? your rule that your property price is at stake?? If HDB prices are really cheaper & not subsidized to the full amount as what the PAP claimed, then we want to hear it. It is up to the opp to prove it. Not to hide just because you think you will suffer lost - Yap, shows really what kind of selfish person you really are! Quoted Yap: We're a small red dot and cannot hv the luxury of dents here and there to our international standing. Ans: Havnt you read anything abt our human rights record?? abt our so called unfair tactics by the ruling party at the last election??- these are bad international news that you probably never read...to name just a few recent ones. But in the same manner, the PAP will quote foreigners' opinions abt us (biz rankings) just as easily dismiss poor opinions. Quoted Yap: So the opp approach must be constructive and within the rules; the PAP is not that tyrannical as wld seem to be made out to be from some postings here. Ans: again, where were you??? What rules are u talking abt? Let us know what are the rules you mean? Quoted Yap: and e) last but not least, the opp must be loyal. The national interest is primary, whatever may be the party platform. Ans: is there a reason why you think the opp is not loyal?? Who is not looking at the national interest here?? Is it a national interest to deny the 2 constituencies HDB upgrading, a constructive policy by the PAP? Is that what you mean by a good record?? That they are better than wat anyof us made them out to be??


	ali baba June 10, 2006 09:50 AM PDT It would be cheaper to get Manmohan Singh to run singapore and pay him S$20 000 a year. He would be happy to run singapore for you at a lower cost.


	john riemann soong June 10, 2006 09:33 AM PDT Don't know if this has been discussed yet, but has anyone worried in fact what the HDB will do in an upgrade? I suppose there are different types. The En Bloc programme IMO, one of the worst because it seems that there is a good chance that relocate you to an area much farther away (perhaps a different constituency!) than the original spot. Which of course greatly upsets me because when I return I would like to continue as always, where I had lived (with memories) as well as the convenience of access. After all, wasn't it a common complaint that the government used the upgrading scheme as an excuse to disperse the opposition? They say "we're upgrading you!", but then they tear down the flats and disperse the opposition voters all over the country. Or, they "upgrade" you to a supposedly more modern flat but it's much smaller. I thought the upgrading programme was bad enough as it is. I in fact will push for upgrading if it's very good, out of principle more than anything, as well as if the residents feel like they really need it, but surely we want to make sure we aren't putting our head in the tiger's mouth first. I'm very satisfied with my old HDB flat at Dover as it is (when I stayed there, and may stay there before it's torn down, j'espere!). Who cares if the lift doesn't stop at every floor? Who cares if it's not "modern"? It looks modern enough to me. It's quite roomy enough for me (I like the lifestyle because then one can go outdoors for the majority of recreational activities) not to suffer an upgrading scheme that has been used to disperse voters and perform eminent domain. The worst thing about the scheme? It seems my parents have to start their mortgages all over again. HDB? Unsympathetic (never mind that my mother was an architectural draftsman in their former employ). So naturally we want to ensure that any upgrading scheme puts residents almost right in the same place. Of course, my area is pretty old. My grandmother's flat is also pretty old (to me, lifts that stop at all floors is an interesting novelty, but the lifts that stop at four floors is a normality - I like climbing anyway, the elderly might not) ... but Dover and Telok Blangah have been in walkover constituencies for years. Slums? Er not really. Feeling of retrospect? Some sentiment, sometimes. When we finally upgrade, I don't want to be sent to another constituency, or even anywhere more than a kilometre from the former site. Or I'll have another grievance.


	PAPless June 9, 2006 10:50 PM PDT Yap, the following points: Quoted Yap:"We certianly need a credible opposition. On the other side of the coin, we certainly cannot afford to unseat the PAP, not until we hv a credible opposition in sight! Even if we hv a credible opposition, it does not follow we want it to replace the PAP with its fabulous track record...." Ans: we are not asking to replace but to put enough representation to keep the PAP in check. What fabulous track record?? Most of it will happen if this is Hong Kong or Korea or some other cities...what they have created is a city on steroid. And to keep it going...you need them to administer the steroid periodically...you become dependent on it and loses the freedom of choice...after all, you cannot do without them since they have the right concoction of steroid. "... Unless we're confident it cld rival the PAP in performance, to improve our bread and butter. ..." Ans: that is typical PAP propaganda you swallowed. Look at South Korea, Hong Kong and other cities...not saying PAP did not contribute to the success..but its overblown.. the world economy..particularly this region economic boom...thats not entirely any govt. effort. Another fact, can you say that if the PAP is so good...why do we still get the same economic downturn as everybody else in the region??? They were caught off guard a few years ago...they tried but could not do anything about the massive job losses... so success & failure ..not entirely PAP fault or effectiveness. They can only ride on the success of the market...Can the Opp make oil prices go up?? -that was the comment of one PAP MP who was listing out what they can do for the nation. Tat is what you are implying...the fact that we have attracted so many oil related companies here means that the PAP has made it a success...so if oil prices going up ...that is due to the PAP. Quoted Yap: "MM and the old PAP guards sacrificed their personal comfy surroundings to change and remould our nation. We wld need extreme sacrifices from u young ppl to do likewise, not hide behind anonymity to blow your trumpets! " Ans: for S$1million per year, any young/old guy can do wonders. Is that sacrifice?? You get absolute power..you get S$million...you get immunity from almost anything except disease (SAR) and death..you get to sue whoever you want... who wouldn't make that "sacrifice" if the opportunity to be there is given?? Quoted Yap: "And MM and his cohort were constructive in taking up the cudgels, not bandying around weak proposals that crumble with the first close scrutiny. Ans: If they have the resources to pull through any proposals, you will of course say its constructive. If I have S$100m at my disposal, I can build the best Opera house...look at the cost of maintenance now??? Is the casino a constructive proposal? Is the Graduate Mother scheme not too long ago a constructive one or a hint of Eugenics?? Is the one time favorite pastime & exhortation of the govt to merge large organisations such as the medias, banks,etc constructive??I would think these are destructive & loss of time & opportunities to channel energies of these orgs.. And the disguises are UP all the time...do you think the PAP will admit their past mistakes?? They even wait until after the election to make some truths abt resignations known. Eg. the MP, who is a lawyer, who was sued by clients for some misrep issues? Quoted Yap: I mean, we certainly need some good ppl in the opposition for it to be credible to iron out any excesses that the ruling party may unthinkingly decide to do. "Unthinkingly", because mostly, PAP does think thru' any policy for implementation. Still, it's not perfect, as past experiences hv shown, eg 2-child families. So a credible opposition speaking for the ppl on these issues wld be good. Ans: Isnt that what the WP is trying to do at the last election?? ...recruit better people & they were very practical - look at what they brought up as proposal- Ministers salaries pegged to the poorest..that is constructive...Health issues...that is now clearly putting pressure on the PAP to do something now...look at the Straits Times today..they have to put 2 articles on how good the health system is ...obviously filtered all the bad publicity.. what you have done was lumped opp parties like SDP as if they represent the Opp. They are not the same. WP & SDA gets the endorsement of the people because they are credible & genuine. Quoted Yap: Also, continuing power unchallenged over decades cld lead to political arrogance at the expense of the ppl, and the entrenchment of certain vested interests that cld alienate the ruling party and cronies from the people. That's why love for the people is paramount as the pillar of government, and power must be exercised of the people and for the people. This wld require both empathy and sympathy for the general populace, with especial attention paid to the needy and elderly. Ans: I agree with you here. But do you really think the PAP knows the ground?? Do they know how people on the ground struggle for a living?? Even without job security, they stand down as ministers, walking away 4-5 years later with riches that last at least a generation. They have unwittingly removed themselves far from the action in the heartland. Quote Yap: On the opposition's front, we'll need informed responses and feedback, not emotional outbursts like hoping for someone to kick the bucket (as emailed by recruit ong). Ans: Granted some responses are emotive, but the Opp parties, at least WP has done well in making constructive proposals.


	thor666 June 9, 2006 10:34 PM PDT >> Thor666, long or short manifesto is not the point. But substance wld count. Then please read the WP and PAP manifesto. >> The PAP has been in power for so long, there're few issues that they've not faced and resolved; and their track record speaks eloquently, as against the record of our opp., which is dismal. Other repliers have answered this question, so I will not elaborate. >> So to be credible, the opp shd a) have good & talented ppl to join. I won't say good nor talented - that's subjective - but the opposition, especially WP, has a crop of young members with high qualifications and credentials this time round. >> How? b) be credible in tabling issues in Parl. Think thru' issues and back their proposals with solid facts, not wishy-washy rhetoric. That is if one gets into parliament. By the way, Steve Chia's speeches in parliament are quite good imo. You can look his stuff up the Hansard or get his book. But many seem to ignore that for his porn and nude stuff. So is there something else to say about intellect? >> c) be connected with the ground, for feedback. Filter the relevant from the irrelevant. For instance, the opp arguing that HDB flats cost rather cheap to build, discounting location, existing mortgages, etc - do they want prop prices to dive to everyone's heavy loss? Phew!! I agree with you on this point. I'm not always agreeable to every single PAP or WP or SDA or SDP policy. However, note again this is a problem that PAP created. I'm not sure how long artifical economies last; your guess is as good as mine. >> d) play by the rules. We're a small red dot and cannot hv the luxury of dents here and there to our international standing. I don't know what rules you mean, so I won't comment further. Do note that Hongkong is many times smaller than us, and they can afford to have a different political system. >> e) last but not least, the opp must be loyal. The national interest is primary, whatever may be the party platform. Agreed. But loyalty is subjective as well. You cannot guarantee that the PAP is loyal to Singapore and Singaporeans, or if they have vested interests elsewhere. That makes for a criteria that cannot be measured.


	Name June 9, 2006 09:26 PM PDT No political party [PAP included] can stay in power forever. Opposition party can and will have a chance to become the ruling party if the electorate so decides. It is a matter time, and when that happens then and only then their performances [credible or otherwise] can be assessed and determined. Our PAP government, I agree, does have its track records, but when we talk about track records we mustn't only talk about the "healthy" ones we must also include the "unhealthy" ones as well. "Two is Enough" so says the poster way back when, but when the population demography shows a different story; alarm bells started ringing - real loud. You know why? Your guess is as good as mine.


	Botak June 9, 2006 07:56 PM PDT singapore can afford to have 10 opposition MPs and parliament will come alive.


	deadbeat June 9, 2006 07:19 PM PDT apropos to the previous post, here's the link for info on tharman's leak. Fairly ridiculous govt policy as usual. http://www.saliltripathi.com/articlesAsiaInc/June94AsiaInc.html


	anonymous June 9, 2006 05:45 PM PDT All the white shirts are riding on LKY's credibility, in my opinion. Look at Tharman, how credible can one who has been fined for leaking official secrets? And mind you, he is running the Min of Education. Fine role model, I must say. Even that, he is lost and he needed more khaki to help him to review our education policies which most of us know is in a mess! Ask the students ... they are the victims. Not to mention the other civil servant MPs. What's so credible about Seah Kian Peng, Teo Li Min etc (never heard of, right? ) Come on, just some ordinary folks who had some senior positions in a company. Bigger joke is that Heng Chee How. Lost many rounds to Low Thia Kiang and finally given some MP job to save his face, probably. Spare me the credibility talk, please.


	ang mo June 9, 2006 05:07 PM PDT singaporeans are very timid and docile. the good ones have migrated to Australia and NZ.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 9, 2006 05:05 PM PDT PAPless, state your reservations on what I hv emailed specifically, point counter point. No merit in your just contending I'm off-key! If your points are better vis=a-vis mine, in specifics, please, then I'll concede u've got your feet firmly grounded. Otherwise, well, need I say more?


	PAPless June 9, 2006 04:43 PM PDT Yap- we are not talking about replacing the PAP entire 82 people. IF our voters can get 10-12 Opp people into the govt. it would have been a very effective check on them. You sound like the PAP - spreading alarm as if a loss of 1 GRC is the death of Spore.


	PAPless June 9, 2006 04:38 PM PDT Yap Swee Ho- i wonder where were you in the last election. Didnt the Opp party like WP put up some concrete suggestions?? Did you read anything?? Seems like you are harping & talking about the kind of Opp during Harban Singh era in the goodness...70's, 80's??


	Yap Swee Hoo June 9, 2006 03:52 PM PDT Thor666, long or short manifesto is not the point. But substance wld count. The PAP has been in power for so long, there're few issues that they've not faced and resolved; and their track record speaks eloquently, as against the record of our opp., which is dismal. Action speaks louder than words, and it speaks very loudly for the PAP vis-a-vis their short manifesto. It's imp that the opp does not merely focus on emotive issues to win over the ppl. S'poreans are an educated lot, and we do think even out of the box, as can be seen from the postings here. Who are we to think those out there are less smart? So to be credible, the opp shd a) have good & talented ppl to join. How? b) be credible in tabling issues in Parl. Think thru' issues and back their proposals with solid facts, not wishy-washy rhetoric. As I said, S'poreans not stupid, u know! c) be connected with the ground, for feedback. Filter the relevant from the irrelevant. For instance, the opp arguing that HDB flats cost rather cheap to build, discounting location, existing mortgages, etc - do they want prop prices to dive to everyone's heavy loss? Phew!! d) play by the rules. We're a small red dot and cannot hv the luxury of dents here and there to our international standing. Political stability and public security must be seen by all around to prevail, otherwise we'll all be in the shit-pot! So the opp approach must be constructive and within the rules; the PAP is not that tyrannical as wld seem to be made out to be from some postings here. and e) last but not least, the opp must be loyal. The national interest is primary, whatever may be the party platform.


	Prisoner of PAP June 9, 2006 03:10 PM PDT Wah , Mr PAP and Mr Lucky Tan I like all your comments man! Damn good Lah ! I think if you not already apply to join the real MIWs or already are one ( spy, i.e. ) , then you damn waste of time and talent lah! BTW , if you are thinking about it, which I think you should, don't forget to FILL IN THE FORM AND RETURN TO THE COUNTER, otherwise CC camera will catch you!


	thick skull June 9, 2006 03:09 PM PDT parliament needs people from many parties. there will be more debate and people dont become complacent.


	big mouth June 9, 2006 03:02 PM PDT the opposition need to get more credible people. The next election in 2011 will be more exciting.


	anonymous June 9, 2006 02:19 PM PDT Good gracious! after all, seems like we do agree about the following: 1 we do need a strong opposition, credible, as some preferred it called. 2 PAP is less than perfect, they had blunders of their own too 3 if left unchecked, these blunders can cost us our future too. 4 to make some happy ... PAP had done well in the past. Actually, no one dispute that but we are not historians and we don't want to make a living talking about the past. I think some of us are worried that they focussed too much on the past and forget our future! We need leaders with a vision not hindsight about fighting some communists. For his information, he has been visiting the communists every other month, selling books.


	thor666 June 9, 2006 01:25 PM PDT Yap Swee Hoo: I'm not sure if you have read the manifestos of WP and PAP then. The WP has a 51 page manifesto covering their policy recommendations in details. The PAP has 5 pages of "staying together, moving ahead", complete with fanciful pictures, but only a few promises (the rest are basically "improve XXX", which are subjective.) If you've read the WP manifesto carefully and still feel their suggestions are not credible enough, then you are entitled to your stand. Remember though, they actually bothered to think about their policies and write in so much detail. I cannot say the same for SDA since theirs is not a manifesto but a collective group of alliance. As for the SDP, I understand not everyone feels the act of non-violence action is the way for political progress. Credibility is certainly subjective. I do find it amusing that people can talk about credible oppositions that do not even have much power since they cannot get into Parliament to ask for reforms. But of course, if you subscribe to our PMs idea that he will have to address 20/30/40 opposition and so cannot effectively think about his policies, then the opposition shouldn't deserve your vote.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 9, 2006 12:21 PM PDT We certianly need a credible opposition. On the other side of the coin, we certainly cannot afford to unseat the PAP, not until we hv a credible opposition in sight! Even if we hv a credible opposition, it does not follow we want it to replace the PAP with its fabulous track record. Unless we're confident it cld rival the PAP in performance, to improve our bread and butter. Not an easy task for any opposition, certainly again. MM and the old PAP guards sacrificed their personal comfy surroundings to change and remould our nation. We wld need extreme sacrifices from u young ppl to do likewise, not hide behind anonymity to blow your trumpets! And MM and his cohort were constructive in taking up the cudgels, not bandying around weak proposals that crumble with the first close scrutiny. I mean, we certainly need some good ppl in the opposition for it to be credible to iron out any excesses that the ruling party may unthinkingly decide to do. "Unthinkingly", because mostly, PAP does think thru' any policy for implementation. Still, it's not perfect, as past experiences hv shown, eg 2-child families. So a credible opposition speaking for the ppl on these issues wld be good. Also, continuing power unchallenged over decades cld lead to political arrogance at the expense of the ppl, and the entrenchment of certain vested interests that cld alienate the ruling party and cronies from the people. That's why love for the people is paramount as the pillar of government, and power must be exercised of the people and for the people. This wld require both empathy and sympathy for the general populace, with especial attention paid to the needy and elderly. On the opposition's front, we'll need informed responses and feedback, not emotional outbursts like hoping for someone to kick the bucket (as emailed by recruit ong). Gayle's writings are excellent. Still not perfect and cld be better if they cld point out what more the opposition shd do to improve its performance and future.


	big mouth June 9, 2006 12:02 PM PDT the 2011 election will be the one to watch. The new generation will vote in people who can talk sense and think for the nation. The old ones have been blinded all along.


	recruit ong June 9, 2006 11:59 AM PDT this article in TODAY http://www.todayonline.com/articles/123359.asp "Then there are those who stick around when Singapore is in trouble and cannot guarantee a good life, and those who are concerned with the welfare of others, or try to improve things even at personal risk. These people are of the nation, and not just the place, said Ms Lim." Reminds me of Dr Chee and SDP.


	No heart June 9, 2006 09:08 AM PDT the best politics are those peddled by the ah peks in the coffee shops and taxi drivers. They have the best info for those who are not conversant with local politics.


	i-Potong Pasirisn't June 9, 2006 01:26 AM PDT Citizens' Apathy... that's the advantage that Pappy has been riding on for so many years. The fear tactic of food on table, roof over head, riots, communism, communalism, peace and security ad nauseum has been the way it used to be. People just don't buy into 'if you don't support Pap, you're an ingrate' anymore! "If you're not with me, you are against me" Hello, so passe, still happening meh? Of course, Old Grandpappy still tried it with post '65ers but ... but the threat has outlived itself and has self-destruct and backfired! The youngs are sick and tired. They are telling him,"Hello, why you so like dat uh .. we say change only, you come up with Aiyah, you all young, don't know about riots, communism, communalism". The youngs are telling him, "Grandpa, please lah ... why you so negative about us huh? We cannot change for the better, meh?" As much as grandpa tells us not to teach him how to suck egg, grandpa should know better than using the dumb "I eat more salt than you eat rice!" cliche. Shucks, when will grandpa learn that he's becoming more and more a grumpa and goonpa especially with his orgasm with sue. As much as he's "been there and done that', he must also know what "has been" is all about! Petitions, letters to press, Sunday in the park (Hong Lim?), coffee shop talk, blogs ... such activities are the wake up call to let them know we care ... about justice, equality, democracy and decency. That we care enough to do something about it. We do what we do because we are sick and tired of the arrogance, the pulling of wool over innocents' eyes, the 'fixing' and the 'buying', the bullying and the 'goonpap knows best' attitude. Where have all the flowers gone? Power comes from the people! When will they ever learn? i-singapore


	marcus June 8, 2006 11:43 PM PDT We have seen how anxious the PAP was right before the results of Aljunied GRC was announced. Pity those wards who are not contested as they did not get goodies. Only when the opposition comes around will they get libraries, gyms, covered walkways, lifts upgrading (approved super fast), hospitals, etc. More opposition should contest the rest of the wards in the coming elections. When all wards are contested, it will less effective to redraw election boundaries, and one less weapon in their arsenal. It will also make the MPs sit up and not take things for granted. I have always hold them 'in awe' that they can hold their full time jobs and still have time for their families and be an MP. No wonder they blame Steve Chia for the crows problem, they are supposed to attend to it but blame the opposition who never highlight to them. We should have a informal poll some time to see how often we have seen the face of our MP. To compensate for their lack of presence, what can we expect but for them to threaten us with upgrading packages, pulling out of PAP kindergartens (in the past), suing oppositions, etc. when election comes around. They want to make a clean sweep but the increase in oppostion votes in PP and HG show how strong the resistance can be and if this resistance is united by a strong opposition, more wards will fall. It is a matter of people rising above our materialistic concerns and the oppostion filling their rank and file with talents. By the way, in the past, they claimed their support level is actually higher in uncontested wards. Well, it will be interesting to see the support level in a few other strongholds like Marine Parade and Tanjong Pagar.


	Yea June 8, 2006 11:40 PM PDT Namejymbo, Yea- Maybe this is also true: If any person has been having the habit of licking anus-holes and enjoying the smell of the foul fart that comes out, then no amount of logic or obvious arguments will stop the habit. Fine perfume will be rejected readily.


	Business Community June 8, 2006 09:35 PM PDT To be honest...nothing will change and work now...PAP will never change....I remember Goh Chok Tong when he was PM that PAP wll change under him but PAP still as dirty and domineering as ever. 15 years pass,now Lee Hsien Loong say he will change PAP but I am not going to be cheated a second time. cheated for 15 years is too long. anyway, PAP by admitting need to change means all along, SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG WITH THEM, just that media did a good job to cover their backside. the ONLY and MOST CONCRETE WAY is vote more and more Worker's Party candidates into Parliament until Worker's Party can attract more people and grow strong enough to challenge PAP to be next government.....This could take 30-40 years of elections.....so until that happens...we can come online until pigs fly..... No offence to other alternative parties (AP)....but to seriously challenge PAP networks and dominance, we need to single out ONE party and give stong support so that it is well suited to form the new government. Then we will see positive changes sweeping across Singapore that we can only dream about but never thought will actually happen before.


	OrnateGhost June 8, 2006 09:33 PM PDT Dear PAP, << ... one whole bunch of crap about past pap achievements and the need to be grateful, and finally a gag order ... >> Oh, and as usual completely ignore the contribution of normal citizens. Yes yes yes. We've heard that crap from many ministers, senile ministers and mentors; and we've heard it so many times it can almost replace the National Pledge. Speaking of the Pledge, may I just ask when does the pap intend to fulfill the part where it says, "justice and equality"? When the pap does, remember to wake me...


	Business Community June 8, 2006 09:25 PM PDT "I did not vote in the last 3 elections. When can I ever get to vote? In the next world I hope." brother No brain, let me guess....you stay in Tanjong Pagar GRC helm by that old man...you damn unlucky......lol


	Business Community June 8, 2006 09:20 PM PDT It is not only about upgrading...it is also about developing the two towns nationally. MPs job scope is only so limited. They cannot approve if investors wants to build shopping centres,swimming pools, library etc....e.g Golden Village wants to build a multiplex in Potong Pasir and Hougang but the ministries and HDB said no citing some flimsy reasons....so it is not only about upgrading only but further development of these two towns and Singapore......


	deadbeat June 8, 2006 08:08 PM PDT I guess I might be a little too late, but have you ever thought of submitting this article to the Straits Times. Slanted as the paper might be, it would be interesting to see if it will publish this, something that many singaporeans feel strongly for but cannot articulate well enough. I'm sure that if published, this will garner alot of popular support from many other singaporeans.


	thinker June 8, 2006 07:48 PM PDT some people have no backbone. they need others to think for them. come come, stand up and think and speak for yourself. No need to hide behind somebody's skirt.


	Lucky Tan June 8, 2006 07:45 PM PDT I wrote a mail to PM about how to get rid of 17 yr olds like you. The best way is to give you a scholarship with a 6 year bond. We will send you to some foreign land where you have to cope with an unfamiliar environment and discontinue your dissident activities. When you come back, you will be bonded and sent to some govt dept to take orders. After a few years, your ability to think different.... Please come be a scholar - we can send you to Cornell or MIT.....


	small fry June 8, 2006 07:39 PM PDT Twenty years time, you jokers would not be around. Then gayle and her friends will think for singapore and chart the direction our nation ought to move. Can you all outlive gayle and her cohort???


	singaporeheart June 8, 2006 06:53 PM PDT Actually, I am quite curious to see what happens if the peitition fetches a million names... In the NKF issue, the Government panicked when forums went abuzz with discussions of the peanut issue. I think Wong Kan Seng (was it?) had to urge calm amongst Singaporeans. Obviously, they are afraid, very afraid. Afraid that the people of Singapore will one day begin to realise they do have a weapon of mass destruction - that of widespread public indignation. It will happen when usually rational Singaporeans felt injustice so strong that they can no longer keep silent. I think PAP is testing its people's limits too often, to their own detriment. You can yada yada the same wayang for 40 years. You will get lesser audience every growing day.


	thor666 June 8, 2006 06:11 PM PDT Credit for civil services should also be given to civil services, not just the ruling party. What I appreciate about the government, ironically, is that they were monopolized. I have to agree that Singapore is rather small for too much competition to set in. Of course we should not take away the government's good macro policies, but we should also not be fixated in the past and harp on the track record and "do not bite the hand that feeds you". A good PAP government is just not going to last forever. One can say Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong, Lee Hsien Loong are good PMs, but I can safely say no one can assure that future PAP PMs will be good PMs. Credibility is also subjective. PAP can hint that WP members will not be able to handle foreign affairs, economic relations, but who is to say if you have never given them a chance? Bear in mind, the PAP MPs credibilities are relatively more sheltered by the media, which is a persistent form of influencing people. When the ST can "assist" to change the PMs speech from "fix" to "address", and oppositions' speeches are selectively written, it is no wonder why many people feel opposition parties lack credibility.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 8, 2006 05:40 PM PDT Yada Yada, good for u to hv your dreams and yawns. But until the pro-Opp camp gets real, it's going nowhere! Railing against the ruling party without proper basis just won't do!


	PAP June 8, 2006 05:34 PM PDT Singaporeans are such a fussy, selfish, short-sighted and ungrateful bunch.


	anonymous June 8, 2006 05:31 PM PDT Yada yada ... you are so lucky! Hmm, sounds so patronising and familiar. Was Bush credible in the Iraq war? Not until he produces those womad, I'll say. Credibility is subjective. Who's worse? Teh Cheang Wan or Low Thia Kiang? PAP supporters are such a big yawn, really. Even the Gahmen realise there is something wrong as shown in the last elections. I, for one, am happy if they continue to think like before. My dream of having an alternative voice will come sooner :)


	PAP June 8, 2006 05:23 PM PDT Not to mention Internet facilities, computers, electricity and education for you to voice out all your gripes in grammatically correct grammer against the government who provided all these for you.


	PAP June 8, 2006 05:18 PM PDT At least you still have food on your table, a place to live in, an equal opportunity for education based solely on merit, transportation to bring you around, a stable and competant government, a beautifully and well-taken-care-of environment, a peaceful and secure society, a country whom many will flock to if given a chance and a lifestyle which foreigners envy. Now be grateful and stop complaining about every single non-essential thing and making a big fuss out of it.


	No brain June 8, 2006 05:02 PM PDT I did not vote in the last 3 elections. When can I ever get to vote? In the next world I hope.


	PAP June 8, 2006 04:04 PM PDT PAP is imperfect. True. But the opposition is WORSE.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 8, 2006 03:45 PM PDT Heh, tida kotak and recruit ong, don't get personal. Nobody knows who'll kick the bucket; it can be anyone! Don't get me wrong I'm against upgrading of the 2 opp wards. Far from it. By all means, get a million, or the whole of our people to sign the petition, pro-PAP supporters included. It wld not mean that our leaders, as our properly elected reps, will still not hv the privilege to decide on the petition, one way or the other. Or are some of u suggesting we unseat the PAP when we don't even hv a credible opposition anywhere in the visible horizon? Come down to earth, man!


	anonymous June 8, 2006 03:35 PM PDT We should do something. No matter how small or inadequate the effort may seem. Speak up for injustice, the basic tenet of humanity. If not for ourselves, for our future generations. Don't let them suffer because of our apathy. We owe it to our forefathers who came to Singapore with a dream of finding a better place for us. We should carry on this duty to make this place better for those after us.


	recruit ong June 8, 2006 03:11 PM PDT OrnateGhost, thy path lies in dis-engagement and civil disobedience.


	OrnateGhost June 8, 2006 02:42 PM PDT Dear Simon, There's no need for me to go out and break the law. CSJ has already done us that favour and clearly demonstrated the govt's manner of managing folks who do not agree with them politically. What is your point? That the situation cannot be helped and it will just come down to personal prosecution? And that we sit by and watch a govt continue to abuse its authority, sometimes unlawfully? Some rights and wrongs are too obvious to ignore. The question is really what we, as tax-paying citizens, are going to do about it. Obviously, some (the likes of YSH) suppress their sense of justice and consider "pragmatism" a valid excuse to marginalize a segment of our countrymen - whom, by the way, paid their taxes, did their NS, did not act unlawfully, and happened to have voted for the AP. Some just throw a wet blanket and discourage civil activism, e.g. "peition will not work la!!" - that's classic SG apathy. Then there are some who understand and speak up, write, blog, complain, petition, whatever it takes to get heard. Some went further, like CSJ. Some even chose to join pap, hoping to make a difference from the inside -- and ended up being assimilated. Where lies thou path?


	thor666 June 8, 2006 02:35 PM PDT >> The only way to effectively send the message is through the ballot box. Example: Vote for the opposition in a GRC. Therein the dilemna: If the opposition is bad, will you still vote for them as a vote of no confidence against PAP? This catch-22 has even been softened by the opposition's argument of local/national elections, but the PAP has steadfastly refused to engage. Which is obvious why: the PAP will never want to lose votes by creating an election where people are more sympathetic towards the opposition. We need a bigger form of feedback system, and while not expecting PAP to be populist, they should at least reflect and work on issues raised rather than always explaining their side of the coin. Which I don't see happening in the next 5 years, so then PAP will continue to play russian roulette with itself.


	singaporeheart June 8, 2006 01:42 PM PDT I am afraid we over-generalise here. 66.6% of Singaporeans who were eligible to vote had voted for the PAP. Having a walkover does not mean 66.6% of the ward had voted for PAP. It could be more or less. Nobody knows, because most of us were not given a chance to vote due to some unfair tweeking of election rules. That's why the PAP will never have the legitimacy that they are the people's chosen party. Simple as that.


	recruit ong June 8, 2006 01:42 PM PDT Me and my friends will be throwing a party when u-know-who kicks the bucket. Hooray!!


	tida kotak June 8, 2006 01:39 PM PDT the old folks will die off one day. Only 17 year olds like gayle will be around. Let them decide the future. We are not immortal.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 8, 2006 01:38 PM PDT It'll be sad, then, as they'll be bashing their heads off against the hard wall of reality!


	howard June 8, 2006 01:33 PM PDT the new generation would be people like gayle goh and company who use their brain not their cow sense.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 8, 2006 01:29 PM PDT 67% of our people voted for the PAP. So if the PAP favoursthe 67%, they wld hv favoured the majority of us, whatever the squirmings may be among the 33% (or less, if we include the spoilt votes that cld be pro-PAP). Sorry to be spoil-sport, but we need to hv things in proper perspective. As I emailed before, it's hard reality that no ruling party wld want to help the opposition to win (as MM said) and every ruling party wld want to favour its supporters (as SM said). If we want to deny this and go abt with blinkers, no one can help us! When it's also commonsense!


	Robert L June 8, 2006 01:17 PM PDT Come on, people. It's not a zero sum game. It's not as if by supporting the petition, you cannot have other means as well. You can support the petition even if you imagine it would not work. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain. If you have other ideas, go ahead and tell us. But there's no need to withhold your support of the petition. Think about it - if you don't support the petition, it must be because you WANT the people of the two wards to be deprived of upgrading, not because you imagine the petition won't work. There's nothing to lose to support the petition.


	recruit ong June 8, 2006 01:11 PM PDT I applaud those of u who r patient enough to engage the likes of YSH and his ilk. After decades of pap's despotic rule if they dont realize the shit and tyranny around them & wake up, then they r never going to wake up anyway. It is a waste of time and energy to listen and engage them. But wat r we going to do about them? An entire generation or two of ppl who hv been brainwashed? Wait for them to die off? Hahaha now i sound like dat harsh and mean sounding Bilala Kausickan. Some of u may say to me: "Wah how can u say dat? Ppl like YSH also sporean leh! We must be inclusive society" This is when i will use PAP's logic back on them and show them my one one-finger salute.. olo !!! PAP say: "Let's move on", i say "screw you, i refuse to move on." PAP say: "Let's work together for our future", i say "Sorry, i work for my own future, screw you!" PAP say: "we must hv good service attitude & make foreigners feel welcome." I say, "screw you and your tourist dollars, i will be rude to tourists and your FTs." PAP say: "We must fight & defend & protect this land or else foreign investments wont come in blah blah.." I say "Screw you, i am reporting sick & out of there. Get your FTs to fight for you!" I love my country. But my country has been hijacked and the citizens held hostage by terrorists for the past 40 yrs. Does one negotiate with terrorists and give in to terror? And hope they will listen?? LOL. The time for talk and yak yak yak is over, screw the PAP and their running dogs.


	Marquis June 8, 2006 12:01 PM PDT >>condone economic blackmail in the name of "pragmatism"<< Very interesting domain of thought. One disturbing trend I see in Singapore is our obsessive cling on rhetoric labels. In fact, such serves as the convenient tool to the politicalization of the way of lives. It shifts our sight forward without noticing the price that hid behind the veil. Singaporeans are not political apathies but rather politicalised to behave in a certain way.


	gayle June 8, 2006 11:21 AM PDT An online petition is obviously not going to solve all the residents' wards. But it is one avenue to make opinions heard in, if all others are so tightly controlled. Another option is to flood ST's letterbox with indignant letters. There's no guarantee of them being published, but there's a higher likelihood now that GE is over. I don't think we should decry and shut down one possible avenue, like the online petition.


	john riemann soong June 8, 2006 10:33 AM PDT I have many points to say on this. But first I think an online petition can work - but it has to be a customised one, like the one I signed against the casino, which included a field for the NRIC number, which precludes abuse.


	soulgroove June 8, 2006 09:53 AM PDT Very honestly speaking, this petition won't work. Especially an online one. It never will work and it must not work. Simply because there are too many possibilites for abuse of variables within an online petition e.g repeated "signatories" under different names, unable to trace the identity, masked identity etc That said, however, there is no denial that it is indeed an injustice that the residents of PP and HG are not getting their deserved upgrades. The only way to effectively send the message is through the ballot box. Example: Vote for the opposition in a GRC. The problem lies in the fact that people often forget. Often forget the issues. Its like a fad. How do we push this cause? Just don't forget. Don't ever forget there was such an issue. Constantly remind people of the issue. Come the next vote in 5 years time, don't forget when you step in the polling booth. Remember what happened 5 years ago. Remember. Don't forget.


	thor666 June 8, 2006 04:52 AM PDT I hate to say this, but so far no online petition has -ever- succeeded with regards to Singapore politics. So far I've seen: - Petition against casino - Petition for Took to be spared the death penalty (on technical legal rulings) - Petition for the other Indian guy to be spared the death penalty (and abolish the death penalty) Which I don't really care for if PAP doesn't listen and followup (giving explanations for everything and brush it off); it just means that the PAP will play russian roulette again during the next elections. You just have to walk the talk to engage people. No two ways about it. Otherwise you'll just lose touch.


	i-Potong Pasirisn't June 8, 2006 12:53 AM PDT Do we really care? We do. But not all ... there are those in fear, those in denial, those not aware of online petitions (some Ah Peks and Aunties), those who are too busy trying to make ends meet. Even those who care have been engineered/brainwashed to the extent that they are numbed or made unaware to the acts committed. Examples: 1. The incarceration of political & other detainees without trial - I still don't understand why there are S'poreans who sing praises of Mandela do not know the existence of fellow S'porean, Chia Thye Poh. 2. The ad nauseum suing of opposition candidates at almost every election 3. The Progress Package 4. The $180 million carrot that we graciously return. (Thanks but no thanks. We are ethical. We have integrity. We put our heart to our pledge!) 5. The never ending 'pragmatic' reasons/excuses that's used for increase in in public transport, healthcare, utilities cost, GST, etc. Oh, don't forget our 'pragmatic' Durian & coming Casinoes (IR?) 6. The elak or siam or sweeping under the carpet of issues that S'poreans very much like to know: Our reserves, real cost of HDB flats, subsidies? You can bluff some people all the time, all the people some of the time but not all the people all the time! Do we care? Yes we do. We care enough to vote for the opposition. We have S'porean like Chee Siok Chin who has guts and gumption to put forth in court what most feel is a valid case of "votes buying and opposition fixing". Yes we do care. We care enough to write to the press (though they don't get printed). We care enough to blog, to discuss what we feel is wrong, right here. When people in their 60's & 70's say they are sick and tired of the threats by "cheng hu" especially in Hougang & Potong Pasir and want to "tau huan twee tong", there's hope yet! I wish them vibrant health and may they be fit and strong in 2011 and vote to show they care when election comes again. Yes we do care. Slowly and steadily, we can re-sensitize de-numb ourselves and be proud S'poreans that we should be, reciting our pledge with pride and conviction and not feeling like hypocrites! (democracy, justice & equality?) We can be more than money & grade chasers and digits made numb by social & political engineering for the past 40 years. Yes, we care enough to petition for what is right. We care enough to let them know that their thuggish "bullying and blackmailing" behaviour is contemptible and is not exemplary of a political party that rules S'pore. An insult to Singaporeans. This petition may help create a ripple, building into a wave and hopefully turn the tide ... for a better S'pore. Unless we care, unless we change, the PAP will not care and will not change! The times, they are a-changing... To our rulers, remember Our Pledge We, the citizens of Singapore, pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society based on justice and equality so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation." Yes, we must move on ... we must move in the right direction with true justice, equality and democracy! Our Pledge is not NATO. We must do what we pledge. Majulah Singapura! i-S'porean


	PAPless June 8, 2006 12:51 AM PDT are thorny questions abt upgrading, salaries of ministers,etc the reason why they do not want to convene parliament until the heat dies down or until some other emergencies distract citizens? Excuses like renovation are too lame..maybe they thot its easy to smoke singaporeans. Parliament can be convene easily without modern trappings...book the Expo centre & cordon off for security for the period - what so difficult?


	Mah Bow June 8, 2006 12:10 AM PDT To the Petition starter : Why do we need petitions,letters etc to make HDB do their job.???. There is no need for this petition in the first place....it is within HDB's job scope to upgrade PP & HG.... There is no need to be grateful to PAP if they upgrade Potong Pasir & Hougang because it is suppose to be HDB's job anyway. PAP have abuse thier control over HDB on this upgrading issue for 15 years. Even if they upgrade now, it should be rightfully deserve and within HDB's job scope... so there is nothing to be grateful about PAP.....do not make PAP look like heroes now......


	marcus June 8, 2006 12:06 AM PDT The votes in the opposition wards have spoken very strongly where this tactic is concerned. That is why they have now done an about-turn and 'reconsidered' their approach. But being the ever calculative people, it would be hard to imagine that they will do the upgrading in the opposition ward. Even if they do it, they will have it measured in dollars and cents. Can one imagine what will happen if they do the upgrading and then to have the residents there snub them again in the next election? Well, judging by this statement: "Potong Pasir and Hougang residents deserve to be treated differently because they have made their choice to sacrifice a better living for the sake of having Opposition rule -- because of this choice, they are different from the rest of Singapore", there will be hell to pay and the residents can expect punitive measures for the betrayal after the elections.


	Sigh June 7, 2006 11:22 PM PDT sad to say... it took sporeans 15 years to realise the upgrading tactic was evil. Upgrading tactic was invented by PAP in 1991 to counteract opposition's by-election strategy...... Everything is too late...sigh.....toooo late


	JL June 7, 2006 11:18 PM PDT Just one statement: It is the right thing to do. No more no less. Even newer estates like Tampine / Pasir Ris got upgraded. It wasnt just base on "all things being equal, we let PAP wards upgrade first" because now "not all things are being equal" The comment on "There is no such thing as level playing field by LKY" does not hold water. Singapore is an independent country and should cultivate its own political values. Just because other countries is politically ill does not justify Singapore's political illness as normal. PAP's favourite trick is to use other countries actions to justify their own actions whether it is First World or Third World as long it helps them win the argument......


	Agagooga June 7, 2006 11:00 PM PDT The Singapore Politics Drinking Game: Every time the PAP wins an election despite high Opposition rally turnouts, discontent from many, promises that the tide will turn this time and to cries of "never again!", finish the whole bottle!


	prisoner of pap June 7, 2006 10:46 PM PDT Recently, my white MP, Knok on my door, and very kek ki.. Say 'I've worked so hard, so vote for me', 'Or rubbish won't be cleared, in your vicinity'. I said 'Dear MP of my GRC', 'Dun remember u, so please pardon me'. 'I only saw you on TV', 'Dozing off and jiak liao bee'. Last GE I voted for thee, 2% up in GST. Cut CPF and up utility, Are still very clear in my memory. 5 years later, then you come to me, Fresh from your slumber of ivory. Say that only, you can help me, Escape from a life of poverty. Just take a drive on CTE, Count the number, of all the gantries. Or squeeze a ride on the MRT, That has not been cleared for ye. My life since the last GE, Has been downhill though I voted PAP. If I vote the same for your sleeping spree, I can expect the same misery. So this time round, I vote for somebody, Who will kachiao you, to productivity. Forms fill wrong, no big deal to me, If there's someone to speak up for ah bee. So dear MP of GRC, If life no improve, vote u cho simi?


	Simon June 7, 2006 10:18 PM PDT dear OrnateGhost if you think the govt. is unlawful and so as a citizen should not need to follow the law. then why don't you go out and obviously break the law, like robbery or something and see what happens..


	Simon June 7, 2006 10:11 PM PDT why don't we all just give the PAP government sometime to upgrade PP and HG. its only been a month after the GE and parliament won't convene till another 4-5 months. signing a petition won't help. fund raising for upgrading of PP and HG might help, eventhough 2 out of 3 voted for the PAP, why don't appeal to the 1 out of 3 that voted for opposition. get the aljunied and AMK resident involved too.


	Mandela June 7, 2006 09:53 PM PDT The people of Hougang are like the blacks in South AFrica during the era of apartheid. Along came Nelson Mandela and he took the pains to set them free. Now the blacks can use the public bus and the beaches without bothering about the colour of their skin.


	sharon June 7, 2006 09:43 PM PDT The residents of Hougang are second class citizens. They have no upgrading to look forward to. They are held to ransom much against their will.


	PAPless June 7, 2006 09:23 PM PDT be real. If you really think the PAP is going to let go of this, u are in dream land. They hv the so called "mandate of 67%" to do what they like...fix anything. The govt is PAP and viceversa. If singaporeans hv not woken up to this fact..then wake up! U don't vote them in & talk justice...justice is to who has power..not stupid arguments. The moment Singaporeans realize that the vote is important (not to vote PAP but to represent you, your brand of democracy,aspirations,etc) then we have matured.


	Janice June 7, 2006 08:36 PM PDT I strongly support the petition because I, too, believe that the government is here to serve people and every citizen deserves to be treated equally regardless of their political belief. Penalizing residents of non-PAP wards is not a respectable thing to do in a democratic society.


	Jol June 7, 2006 08:12 PM PDT I guess if Hougang and Potong Pasir get invaded, they should also be denied the benefit of the defence forces; and if people there fall ill, they should be denied the benefit of subsidised healthcare; and if they have children, those children should be denied the benefit of subsidised education. Whee.


	anonymous June 7, 2006 08:08 PM PDT Sad truth is, some of us never get to vote! Yep, entire 40 years of my existence .... I would support the petition because I would have voted against PAP to show my stand, that is, if I am given the opportunity. I see this as my little contribution to my fellow citizens. At least, I will have my voice heard. It means much to me.


	PAPless June 7, 2006 07:58 PM PDT actually i find singaporeans stupid & immature. If they knew beforehand that the PAP has on record this stance, why vote them so overwhelmingly if this is an important issue?? Put your vote where you really think works. Iwill not support this - if you really want to make it count - do so in 2011, not some stupid petition that goes nowhere. 67% voted PAP - so i suppose the 33% are whinning?? (neg spoilt votes)


	Blair June 7, 2006 06:24 PM PDT The conclusion is: if you dont vote for me I have the right not to upgrade your HDB block. Take it or leave it. I can do what I like with your taxes. It is my prerogative. Is this democracy????


	Namejymbo June 7, 2006 06:14 PM PDT Hip Hip Hooray, well said Ornateghost, you know I think there are still people amongst our midst that doesn't know how to differentiate between the smell of a fart and that of a perfume.


	OrnateGhost June 7, 2006 06:14 PM PDT YSH, I would only respond that your notion of "pragmatism" is at least as vauge and overly generalized as is "public interest". And may I add -- subjective. Yes I was wrong: you are not confused at all. You merely lack a sense of justice to be able to differentiate between a government delivering its duty vs. the same government abusing its authority. I hate to wonder how many in the current pap govt have identical thoughts like yours. This only serves to convince me of the need for extensive check & balance in our legislative.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 7, 2006 06:05 PM PDT But as I emailed earlier, this does not detract from the ruling party's sacrosanct duty and responsibility to continue to connect with the ppl of the 2 opposition wards, for their problems to be resolved no less than other favoured wards, but in ways deemed "pragmatic" by the govt. This is the hard reality, in life.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 7, 2006 05:54 PM PDT OG, "public interest" is overly vague and generalised. Much wld depend on who interprets it. So if u're the ruling party, pragmatism dictates. And pragmatism must encompass 'public interest' to some, if not large, extent, depending on which fence one is in. If u're in the wrong camp, or opposition, u can expect to lose out somewhat, if not aplenty, vis-a-vis the favoured pro-ruling party camp. No confusion at all, OG.


	OrnateGhost June 7, 2006 05:35 PM PDT Dear YSH, I think you are confusing "pap vs. opposition" with "pap vs. public interest". I used an extreme example to illsutrate a logical consequence if we continue to be confused. You are wrong to say that "being lawless" is beside the point. It is, in fact, the whole point. When a political party favors its supporters -- with its own resources -- I would totally agree with you, lee kuan yu and goh chok tong. Here's the problem: the $$ for upgrading are not pap's money. We contributed via income tax, GST, CPF and what not's. These are public funds, mind you. And pap has the gall to say that it has the right to use public funds in favour of its supporters. Are there clear, concise and transparent criteria to decide how to allocate public funds? Is it lawful for a government to make such decisions based on political allegiance? Is it just? Intuitively, the answers to the above are a resouding NO. If it is not lawful nor just, then it follows that the pact between citizens of an opposition ward with the government is no longer valid. Put it simply, if the govt is unlawful then why do the citizens have to stick with the law? Lawfulness is the whole point, and it starts from the top. When LHL proclaimed that he has the mandate of singaporeans to bring singapore forward - I trust that he did not deliberately leave out the folks in HG & PP.


	George Bush June 7, 2006 05:27 PM PDT You can penalise the people of Hougang if they have not paid their property tax or carry out illegal demonstration against the govt. But why penalise them when they exercise their right to vote?


	David Beckham June 7, 2006 05:23 PM PDT gayle's column is more reliable than the local press. At least she is honest in what she says. The articles in the press should be taken with a pinch of salt.


	Bo chap June 7, 2006 05:16 PM PDT I only wish that the people of Hougang and Potong Pasir do not have to pay GST and income tax. Then they can vote the opposition any time they like. Democracy means I can have a choice as to whom I want to vote.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 7, 2006 04:55 PM PDT Heh,OrnateGhost! We're talking abt PAP vs Opposition, that the former wld not help the latter to win. Not abt citizens, as supporters and non-supporters. Breaking the laws, or being lawless, is beside the point! But btw parties, both MM LKY and SM GCT are right in what they said!


	singaporeheart June 7, 2006 04:08 PM PDT It's sad that some of us have yet to see through the faulty rationale that that has been dished out recently. It is wrong to use the upgrading carrot as an election strategy. Take it to the extreme, then PAP could threaten future voters with the provision of basic services like for example, the police services. HP and PP would not be "protected" by the police unless they crossed the right box. I strongly believe that in everyone of us, there is a sense of justice and what is right. Sad is when we chose to numb this sense in exchange for something less noble. Makes us less worthy of being the superior species on earth.


	OrnateGhost June 7, 2006 02:23 PM PDT Let's just focus on the following statement chanted repeatedly by the pap, "A party has the right to favour its supporters, just like a business would." Supposing we actually agree with it, then by inference, it would be justified to make the following statement, Non-supporters are therefore not obliged to participate in or support the party's other policies, including but not limited to - Paying income tax or CPF - National service - Paying GST - Complying to law If the pap can indeed allow this, I don't see why we have to beg for the upgrade mumbo jumbo. The policy of aligning national resources to favored supporters will just drive a deep divide into our society - and it will be pap's fault and no one else's. It is also a clear sign that the pap cannot unlink political decisions from governmental decisions - weak governance, in short.


	Lucky Tan June 7, 2006 02:22 PM PDT Ooi Gayle! Those in PP & HG did not make any effort to follow a few simple rules to mark [X] in the correct box....now you're saying they should also be reward?! ....How can? Absurd!! This is an insult to the rest of us who made the effort to mark the correct box. Are you suggesting that we waive the rules for these people? This is totally unjust and unfair. http://singaporemind.blogspot.com


	gayle June 7, 2006 01:55 PM PDT This is not unbridled support of the opposition's demands. This is unbridled support for what -I- feel is right. -I- felt personally affected and angry by those tactics. For you to condone economic blackmail in the name of "pragmatism" is also disturbing.


	anonymous June 7, 2006 01:49 PM PDT My fellow Singaporean, this is not an opposition demand. Please also take some time to read those comments from our fellow countrymen in the same petition. It sickens me to think there are still some amongst us who still lip-service the twisted logic from the government. Common sense, that's what these Singaporeans are telling you.


	Yap Swee Hoo June 7, 2006 01:26 PM PDT MM LKY was right to say that no ruling party wld want to help the opposition to win. SM GCT was also correct to say that preference wld be given to pro-PAP wards. Nothing wrong in their statements as we're talking abt pragmatism in politics. But having said this, the PAP shd continue to engage the ppl of the 2 opposition wards to build rapport and resolve problems. More perhaps, than in pro-PAP wards in the bblical sense of 'the lost sheep'. And upgrading of the 2 wards shd also be given their due consideration. However, we shd not go overboard to do anything that wld affect S'pore's reputation and standing as a politically stable, safe and sound haven. Unbridled support of opposition demands is certainly not the answer, and criticism must be balanced such that it also gives due weight to the concerns of the ruling PAP. It's commonsense!

Leave a Comment:

Home

gayle goh

profile

Recommended Posts

Do We Owe Our Existence to the PAP?
A Message From a Media Insider
The Bilahari Kausikan Post
Bilahari Kausikan's Reply
Money in Politics, Politics in Money
Workers' Party, PAP or My Living Room Armchair?
My Vision for Singapore
Democracy is Dangerous!
Singapore's Midlife Crisis
Smile, Singapore! WB and IMF Meetings a Scam
Chees' Rally & March; Interview with Gandhi Ambalam

worthy reads
xenoboy sg
students' sketchpad
singabloodypore
singapore mind
young republic
i-do-not-speak

friends
kwee boon
brendan
ben teh
2sa3
gecko

shameless advertising
if you're looking for air compressors and ancillary parts (vane, rotary, screw, etc), my dad sells them! ;)

disclaimer
the author of this site has based all her personal opinions on what is known to her as fact. any error is made of ignorance, not malice, and is accordingly apologized for. any views and opinions expressed by other persons on this site are not the responsibility of the author, nor does she claim to espouse them.

Contact Me

If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here: