Category: Singapore

This was an article that I contributed to The Straits Times. It was published in the “Insight” section of the paper on Saturday, 1 September 2012.

———-

“DON’T say that! It’s very rude! How would you like other people to call you that?”

That was the scolding I got from my mother when I was just six years old. I had just returned from playing with my friends from the neighbourhood—one of whom was an older Indian boy—and I thought it would be funny to hum a rhyme about him that I had learned from another kid in our group.

This was one of the many lessons my parents taught me about not harbouring prejudiced attitudes and stereotypes about people of other races, nationalities or socio-economic backgrounds. I am glad they not only instilled in me these values, but lived them out in their own words and deeds.

My consciousness against prejudice was honed and heightened during the time I lived in California as an undergraduate. This is in part due to the greater level of public discourse on issues of discrimination and prejudice there. Being a minority and a foreigner there, I was also keenly aware of any behaviour by locals towards me that might hint of prejudice.

That was 12 years ago when social media was non-existent, so I did not have the same insights into the dark recesses of people’s minds that are available now on the Internet. Try googling the phrase “I hate Asians” and you will get over a hundred thousand web pages of uncomplimentary remarks about Asians. Online diatribes against other races or nationalities are therefore not unique to Singapore.

Fortunately, most of the vitriol against foreigners in Singapore appears to be confined largely to the online space. We do not read about hate crime being perpetrated against foreigners here. Foreign diplomats I spoke to recently said they had not received any reports from their nationals about xenophobic attacks. I have many close foreigner friends who are aware of the anti-foreigner sentiments online but have not complained about any physical aggression against them on account of their nationality.

All this is not an attempt to justify any of the baseless insults against foreigners seen on some websites. Making prejudiced remarks against foreigners is objectionable and un-Singaporean, and should stop.

However, before joining the chorus of condemnation against allegedly “xenophobic netizens”, we need to ask what caused this sudden change in attitude towards foreigners. Haven’t Singaporeans traditionally always been welcoming of foreigners and diversity? Did Singaporeans suddenly become xenophobic overnight?

Anyone who examines the online comments about foreigners would realise that much of the anger is actually not directed at the foreigners, but at the Government for its liberal immigration policies.

The online diatribes could be a reflection of many Singaporeans’ frustration about the huge influx of foreigners over the past 10 years. Singapore’s population has ballooned by over 1 million during the past decade . Singaporeans now make up only 63 per cent of the population and 58 per cent of the workforce . The immigration boom has put a severe strain on our nation’s infrastructure, especially public transport, housing and healthcare. Singaporeans are facing increased competition not just for space on buses and for HDB flats, but also for jobs and promotions.

For many Singaporeans, our country is much less recognisable than it was just a decade or so ago. Some feel like strangers in our own land. A friend who works as a professional in a large multinational firm confided that he is the only Singaporean in his department. He lamented that he felt passed over for promotions as he sensed that his department head, who is a foreigner, tended to promote his fellow nationals over locals.

While many other factors may have been at play, this perceived “reverse discrimination” felt by many Singaporeans cannot simply be ignored.

This push back by Singaporeans against the foreign influx has manifested itself in other less offensive ways. The recent furore over the “insult” of Singaporean cuisine by Dîner en Blanc and last year’s “curry incident” reflect a level of cultural nationalism rarely seen in the past.

Singaporeans had hitherto been accustomed to being “educated” by the Government on how to love our country, how to stand up for Singapore, and how to stand together as Singaporeans.

Now we are standing up for ourselves without prompting. We are ready to take the initiative and organise ourselves to demonstrate our pride in our local culture and traditions, without being offensive or insulting. This is a positive development for Singapore.

Therefore, when interpreting online criticisms of foreigners, we need to first identify the genesis of the collective frustrations of many Singaporeans. The target of many netizens’ grouses is perhaps not at the level of the individual, but at the powers-that-be who have opened the gates to admit those individuals in the first place.

These are excerpts of a speech I gave on Saturday 25 August at YouthQuake, a forum organised by the Workers’ Party Youth Wing.

——

I thank the Workers’ Party Youth Wing for inviting me to share the perspective of a parent with young children. I will be sharing about my wife’s and my considerations when starting my family, the challenges faced by working parents in Singapore, and what more can be done to support the family.

I have been married for almost nine years to my wonderful and supportive wife, Elena. We have two children—a daughter Hannah, who is turning four soon, and a son Asher, who just turned two.

I got married at age 26. We remained DINKs (double income, no kids) for about five years before having Hannah. We felt it was better to spend a few years adjusting to married life before having kids.

Why did we want to have kids? If we had we conducted a standard cost-benefit analysis (CBA), here’s how it would have looked like: High initial costs of prenatal and delivery fees, medical check-ups, infant care and childcare fees. There would be 25 years or more of continuous expenditure from diapers to degrees. Since we don’t expect our kids to support us in our old age, the payback period is infinity. So using the CBA approach, the conclusion would have been that this child-raising project should not be undertaken.

This is a clear departure from previous generations, where the costs for raising kids were not so high, the period of upbringing was shorter (since children left school and went out to work earlier), and children were presumed to be the parents’ old age social security policy.

Fortunately starting a family is not a business decision, although one cannot ignore the financial implications.

Our reasons for having kids were more social, cultural and faith-based. Elena and I are Christians. We met in church, which, like most religious organisations, places a strong emphasis on family. We have many church mates, who are also our close friends, who have kids—some with as many as three to five kids. They seemed to be doing well and having much joy in raising their kids.

We also believe that children are a blessing from God and we have a responsibility to multiply ourselves, and raise up the next generation to be a blessing to this world.

Having kids was one of the best decisions we made. Neither Elena or I were crazy about children before we had our own, but now we love every moment we spend with our kids. Nothing brings a smile to my face more than looking at their photos or seeing their quirky behaviour or expressions.

Last week, a reporter emailed me to ask what radical solutions I had for raising total fertility rate (TFR). She asked me what I thought about allowing singles to adopt children, or outlawing abortion for married women. I told the reporter what we need are not radical proposals, but an implementation of practical proposals that many Singaporeans have already suggested in the past. We need to decide as a nation if raising the TFR is really a national priority or if we don’t really think it can be achieved.

If we are serious about raising the TFR, we need to tackle three main challenges: Cost, work culture and our culture and values.

Money is not the solution to everything, but it is the strongest lever the government has at its disposal. We need to significantly reduce the cost of raising children, especially during their first six years of their lives. This is a time where the cost of raising children is the highest. It is also a time when parents are struggling the most financially, as they are a long way from their peak earning power.

One of the biggest cost factors is childcare. Even with subsidies, many parents still have to fork out $500 to $800 or more a month per child, and this excludes the high end childcare centre fees.

If the government is willing to subsidise up to 90% of the training fees of adult workers, including foreigners, why can’t it subsidise a similar proportion for the care of our future Singaporean workers?

Besides money, need to create a work environment that is more conducive for parents with children. Our local work culture needs to change. Employers and bosses need to realise that family comes first, yes even before the job.

Paternity leave will be useful. The Workers’ Party called for it in our manifesto and I raised the issue in Parliament in March. But more childcare leave or paternity leave is just symbolic. When your child falls sick and the childcare centre calls, it’s usually not your leave balance that prevents you from dropping everything and leaving to pick up your kid.

If your boss wants “face time” and does not allow you to work from home, or your workload is so heavy that you can’t afford to leave, you’ll find yourself scrambling to find someone to pick up your sick child. It’s usually those times when you curse your stressful life and hate your work.

We need to redesign work to provide for more telecommuting, flexible work hours, part time work and job sharing. This will also encourage more non-working mothers to re-enter the workforce.

Most of these things will not happen as long as there is a generous supply of skilled and unskilled foreign workers, who are here alone and are willing to put in long hours with low pay. The Government can give all sorts of work-life grants and consultancy assistance, but employers will have little incentive to redesign work in order to retain and attract Singaporean workers unless our foreign worker policies are tightened, including at the high end.

Beyond money and work culture, the third and probably most important and sensitive factor we need to tackle is our culture and values.

Our culture and values have evolved. Many look at child-raising as a burden rather than a blessing. Some couples want to have kids, but are so paralysed by the fear of how difficult it is to raise children. They feel that if they don’t raise their kids to be as smart as Einstein and as talented as Mozart, they have not done their job as parents. This all adds to the calculated cost and stress of raising kids, so they conclude: Why bother?

There is a limit to what the government can do to change values. In fact the more it tries to coax young people to get married and have children, the more put off they are. Even parents and nosy relatives have limited effect on couples deciding to have kids.

I believe social and religious organisations have a big influence on the culture and values of their members. They should do more to encourage their members to “go forth and multiply”, and to provide a supportive environment for parents and families. For example, my church has many cell groups for parents where they can share their experiences and challenges in parenting.

Those who are already parents can also help the peers by not always painting such a burdensome picture of child-raising, but highlighting the joys of having kids. One of my friends does this well. She writes a series of occasional Facebook Notes, titled “Lessons from My Future”. In them she provides snippets of her conversations with her three children. They are always funny and touching. Helps readers realise how precious a privilege it is to be able to raise up future leaders of our nation and our world.

I hope to see more positive stories like these. And I will do my part to share more of my stories. These suggestions are by no means exhaustive, and I look forward to hearing more of your suggestions during the Q&A later. Thank you.

—-

Afternote: The Prime Minister, in his National Day Rally speech on 26 August, announced that the Government is now considering statutory paternity leave, and there will be more infant care and child care financial assistance given to middle and lower income families (although the quantum has not been revealed yet). He also acknowledged that work culture needs to change, although he seemed to suggest that this was not something the Government can control.

These are steps in the right direction, although as I alluded to in my speech on Saturday, paternity leave is primarily symbolic. What really needs to be changed is our work culture to provide better work-life balance. I believe this is within the Government’s control. Tightening the inflow of foreign workers, including professionals, will force employers to re-think ways to attract and retain Singaporeans. This could include providing better work-life balance and more family-friendly workplaces.

The Workers’ Party wishes all Singaporeans a very Happy 47th National Day! Enjoy the video!

“National Day is an important time for us to reflect and think about how we have evolved into the Singapore we have today. It is especially important to remember our pioneer generation… Every Singaporean has something special to contribute to Singapore. We are all different. But what we share, is Singapore as our home. And home, is where the heart is.”
– Sylvia Lim, Chairman, Workers’ Party

Video credits:
Directed by Zen Yeo
Sound and Music by Joe Ng
Special thanks to Samantha Gan

A few weeks back, I heard that some residents living in the western part of Singapore refused to fly their national flag at their HDB blocks because they did not want to be associated with their Residents’ Committee (RC), and by extension, the PAP government.

While I understand where these residents’ sentiments are coming from, I feel their reactions may be somewhat misplaced.

Singapore is bigger than the PAP, as former top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow pointed out several years ago. It is not easy to internalise this fact, especially for those of us who have lived all our lives in Singapore and have been told—through subliminal and not-so-subliminal messages—that the PAP, the government and Singapore are synonymous.

Indeed they are not. One can disagree with the party in power, and yet still be a loyal citizen and a patriot. From my interactions with a cross section of Singaporeans, I am glad to note that most agree with this distinction on an intellectual level.

The national ideals represented by our flag—democracy, peace, progress, justice and equality—cut across political, racial and religious boundaries. I believe we would all do well to reflect a bit more on all of these ideals (not just the second and third one), especially in the area of policymaking.

With that, I urge everyone for whom Singapore is home to fly our national flag proudly this National Day.

I wish all Singaporeans a very Happy 47th National Day!

The Straits Times asked me for my views on the latest changes to MediShield. This is what I told them:

I welcome the prospect of MediShield coverage being extended to babies with congenital problems or prematurity-related complications. I had called for during the Committee of Supply debate in Parliament in March. I am also glad to note the planned increase in policy year and lifetime limits.

However I am concerned about the impact of the $500 increase in deductibles for all patients in Class C and B2 wards. This will amount to a 50% hike for Class C patients, which will adversely impact many lower income patients, who will have to fork out more in cash or Medisave payments. The increase in premiums will affect the elderly more than the young, as the elderly will see a bigger premium hike at a time when they are approaching, or have reached, retirement age.

While I acknowledge that the enhanced MediShield coverage may require some premium increases to keep the scheme solvent, is there is a need for such steep increases in premiums and deductibles? Less than 0.1% of MediShield policyholders reach their policy year and lifetime claim limits, so the cost impact should be limited. Furthermore, between 2006 and 2010, MediShield collected an average of $131 million more in premiums each year than it paid out in claims. Even factoring in the need to set aside an amount each year for its reserves, I believe there is there room for the MediShield scheme to take on greater risks on behalf of Singaporeans.

MediShield is, after all, supposed to be a form of social health insurance, not a commercial insurance scheme.

This is the speech I delivered in Parliament today during the debate on the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, which gave legislative backing to the $1.1 billion Bus Services Enhancement Programme.

—–

Mr Speaker,

The Land Transport Authority (Amendment) Bill gives the Government the powers to fund and implement the Bus Services Enhancement Programme (or BSEP), which was announced during Budget 2012. The BSEP provides for the purchase of 550 new buses over the next 5 years, the hiring of over a thousand bus drivers, and the funding of the maintenance and operational costs for these buses.

I support the objective of the BSEP, which is to improve and expand the range and reliability of bus services provided to commuters. Like most commuters, I hope to see more frequent and less crowded buses, especially during peak hours.

However, I have several concerns about how the Government is going about achieving this intended outcome.

Planning and regulatory failures

The plans to increase the bus fleet to ease commuters’ woes are long overdue. Over the past 10 years, Singapore’s population has grown by over one million people, yet the pace of expansion of our transport infrastructure and operations has not kept pace.

The Government’s failure to expand our transport infrastructure and operations in tandem with the influx of foreigners has led to the current situation of long waiting times, overcrowded buses and trains, and very frustrated commuters.

The Government has belatedly realised that the quality of service (QoS) standards that the public transport operators (PTOs) signed up to previously are not sufficient to meet the needs and expectations of commuters.

Who established these service standards? Is it not the Public Transport Council (PTC), which is an agency under the Ministry of Transport?

Why did the PTC set the bar for QoS standards so low? For example, the current QoS allows for bus loading of up to 95% capacity. This is a very generous allowance, considering it includes standing passengers, not just sitting passengers. I have boarded such packed buses before, where I have found myself standing on the entrance stairs, barely able to even reach the fare card reader to tap my ezLink card.

Despite this, both bus operators failed to meet the standards in 3 of the 6 months in the most recent QoS reporting period . They were issued paltry fines in the magnitude of $100 each time they were caught not meeting these standards.

Now the Government wants to set slightly more stringent QoS standards for the PTOs. Among these, the bus loading limit will be lowered from 95% to 85%.

If the Government had set these more stringent QoS standards earlier, and rolled them out more gradually over the past 10 years in anticipation of our population boom, there would be no need to suddenly ramp it up now. Bus operators could have planned their purchases of new buses and factored them into their annual cost projections.

This might have cut into their profit margins, but taxpayers might have been spared having to fork out $1.1 billion to help the operators meet these sudden new standards.

The Government needs to answer for this planning and regulatory failure.

A related question I have on the QoS is whether it is really the case that the Government cannot increase the standards without breaching the contracts with the bus operators. I understand the PTOs operate on 10-year contracts. When were the current contracts signed and when will they be up for renewal?

According to the PTC website, the QoS standards were revised in August 2007, August 2008 and August 2009. Obviously these were done mid-way during the contract. Why are we being told now that the Government cannot revise the QoS standards without compensating the PTOs?

Scrutinising the costs

A second broad concern I have about the Bill is how is the Government is going to ensure that the subsidy does not get used, either directly or indirectly, to improve the bottom lines of our very profitable PTOs.

During the Committee of Supply debate in March, the Transport Minister said he was going to “scrutinise the PTOs’ actual costs for the purchase and running of the buses” to ensure that PTOs do not profit from this subsidy. Unfortunately, the Bill does not prescribe any mechanism for this scrutiny.

Is there any process in place to prevent the PTOs from acquiring spare parts or maintenance equipment, or conducting staff training using BSEP funds, that can be used to benefit the rest of their fleet?

How will the LTA prevent the PTOs from making the BSEP buses run only the unprofitable routes in far flung areas, while running the profitable routes using their own buses?

In short, how is the Government going to prevent BSEP funds from cross subsidising other parts of the PTOs’ operations?

Will the operations and accounting for the 550 buses be managed by the PTOs, who will then report the figures to LTA and seek funding accordingly? Will LTA take at face value all the figures the PTOs report to them? How will LTA audit the reporting?

Will the establishment of the BSEP mean that LTA will need to set up another department to manage and audit the operations of the PTOs? How many more staff is LTA going to have to hire to manage this 550 bus operation? How much is it going to cost? Is this cost going to be part of the $1.1 billion package or is it extra?

Who is going to fund the operations and replacement of the 550 buses after the 10 years are up? Is this the last such subsidy that taxpayers are going to give to PTOs? If not, are we on a path to permanent operational subsidies being given to these two listed companies?

Public transport model

During the COS debate earlier this year, the Transport Minister, in arguing his case for having profit-oriented companies run public transport operations, said that “the profit incentive drives the operators towards higher efficiency and productivity, which keeps costs as low as possible”.

This sounds ironic in light of all that has happened under in the past year.

Commuters have experienced the most serious and sustained series of MRT breakdowns in its 25-year history. It was not just the December 15 and 17 stoppages, but several other disruptions on the Circle Line, the LRT, the Northeast Line and the East-West Line that took place after that, some of which occurred as the MRT Committee of Inquiry (COI) was underway.

Now despite all the official justifications for the BSEP, there is no running away from two facts: One, that bus service standards are not up to the mark and, two, the government is stepping in to the tune of $1.1 billion to subsidise the service recovery.

What higher efficiencies has the profit-oriented model brought us? We have not seen an improvement of service quality, but a deterioration, especially over the past 5 years. We have seen fares increase but yet the government still needs to pour in billion dollar operational subsidies. We have seen trains breakdown due to underinvestment in maintenance, yet these companies are reporting hundreds of millions of dollars in profits each year. Since 2003, SMRT and SBS Transit have paid over $1 billion in dividends to their shareholders.

Public transport is an essential public good just like education, healthcare and public housing. The returns from this public good benefit more than just the commuters themselves. When commuters are able to get to work quickly, conveniently and in comfort, their companies benefit from their more productive work. By allowing them to reach home on time after work and with less frustration, they can build better relationships with their families, and perhaps even help to raise our nation’s total fertility rate.

The economy and society benefit when we have good and affordable public transport. These positive externalities do not show up in the balance sheets of the PTOs.

The BSEP seems to recognise that greater government investments are necessary to rectify the market failure in the public transport industry. With this Bill, the LTA will not just be a regulator, but will purchase the buses and fully fund their operations. Effectively the LTA, which is a government agency, is going to be the de facto owner of a fleet of 550 buses plying our roads.

However it is neither here nor there. The BSEP does not introduce any competition to spur efficiency and service improvements, yet we do not have a full public monopoly that reaps be benefits of direct control, with profits being reinvested to improve service quality. It is the worst of both worlds.

The public transport model has a great bearing on the long term outcomes of our public transport system. The focus of our bus and train operators should be on improving service quality to meet or exceed commuters’ expectations, not maximising profits for their shareholders.

Mr Deputy Speaker, as a daily commuter myself, I share the concerns of many Singaporeans about the quality, comfort and affordability our buses and trains. The public transport failures of the past few years have caused much angst among Singaporeans. It is incumbent upon this Government to set things right, both in the short term as well as in the long term.

Thank you.

I have filed PQs on education, healthcare and transport for the 9 July Parliament sitting. I couldn’t ask any more because five is the limit for each sitting day.

*26. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Education whether the textbooks used by primary schools are comprehensive enough to cover all the curriculum content examined during the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE) without the need for supplementary content and/or materials provided by teachers or tuition centres.

*27. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Education how are textbooks used by primary schools selected by the Ministry for inclusion in the Approved Textbook List (ATL); whether primary schools are allowed to select textbooks outside of the ATL as their primary text for a subject; and how does the Ministry ensure that all textbooks used by primary schools are of a uniform and sufficiently high standard to meet the demands of examinations, especially the Primary School Leaving Examination (PSLE).

*61. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health what are the top five contributory factors for healthcare-associated infections (HAIs) in our public hospitals; whether the HAI rate is linked to the high bed occupancy rates in the public hospitals; and what is the Ministry is doing to reduce HAIs in our hospitals.

22. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Health for each of the last three years what has been the healthcare-associated infection (HAI) rate (measured per 100 hospital admissions) in each of the following hospitals: (i) Singapore General Hospital (ii) National University Hospital (iii) Tan Tock Seng Hospital (iv) Changi General Hospital (v) Alexandra Hospital (vi) Khoo Teck Puat Hospital; (b) how many patients are diagnosed with HAIs in these public hospitals; and (c) what are the annual direct medical and non-medical costs on the healthcare system and patients resulting from HAIs.

26. Mr Gerald Giam Yean Song: To ask the Minister for Transport when will the report of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) looking into the December 2011 MRT train disruptions be released; whether the full transcripts of the COI proceedings will be released to the public; and whether the Government will table the report as a motion for debate in this House.

[Note: I filed this question before the 27 June filing deadline. This was before I knew the COI report was to be released this week.]

* denotes question for oral answer.

Tonight, I want to touch briefly on an issue that is close to the heart of many Singaporeans, including Hougang residents.

I want to talk about healthcare in Singapore.

Most Singaporeans, especially the elderly, worry a lot about falling ill.

They are concerned not just about the painful treatment they have to go through, but also the painful amount of money they have to spend.

They are concerned about the financial burden they may place on their children.

But when Singaporeans cry out and tell the government that healthcare is getting too expensive, the PAP boasts about their 3Ms financing framework—Medisave, MediShield and Medifund.

They say that this is how the Government helps Singaporeans pay for their healthcare expenses.

But of the three Ms, two come from your own pocket. Last M—Medifund—is only available to the very poor, who have used up all their savings and as well as their children’s savings.

Medisave is your own hard-earned savings. It is not a gift from the government.

MediShield is a health insurance scheme. You pay premiums for most of your life, and you can only draw from it if you are very sick.

The government also does not subsidise MediShield. In fact, I asked in Parliament how much MediShield has collected in premiums, and how much they have paid out in claims.

Who wants to make a guess—did they collect more or did they pay out more?

Between 2006 and 2010, MediShield collected an average of $131 million more in premiums each year than it paid out in claims. $131 million every year.

Because the PAP operates MediShield like a commercial insurance scheme, premiums shoot up as one gets older. So after you retire and have less money on hand, you find yourself paying higher and higher premiums and deductibles. Yet, this is precisely the time when you need more medical care.

I have called in Parliament on the Government to avoid increasing premiums when they expand coverage, but instead use some of the millions of dollars collected in premiums to fund the scheme. The Government has refused.

These are complex issues. It is hard to go into details during election rallies. Also, the PAP can choose not to reply to what we say during election rallies. But in Parliament, they cannot ignore us. They have to respond. They must either justify their position, or change their policy.

This is why we need you to send more Workers’ Party candidates to Parliament, so that we can fight for your rights.

If you vote Png Eng Huat into Parliament, he will work with the rest of the Workers’ Party MPs to push the Government to reduce healthcare costs for the people.

Voters of Hougang, this is our last election rally and the last day of campaigning.

There have been many distractions during this election campaign. But I urge you to focus on what is important for you and your family.

This is a by-election to decide whether you want the Workers’ Party to continue serving you in Hougang and representing you in Parliament.

The PAP has thrown up a couple of goodies to entice you. Actually the goodies this time are not as good as in previous elections. They are just promising you a couple of covered walkways, which the Workers’ Party is already planning for you.

In 2006, they promised you $100 million to upgrade your ward if you voted for them. You rejected that carrot, because for you, having a credible opposition voice in Parliament is more important than upgrading.

Voters of Hougang, the PAP has punished you for years for voting for the Workers’ Party. They used you as a whipping boy to set an example to other constituencies, to show them the consequences of voting for the opposition.

Now the PAP is asking the people of Hougang to make a fresh start and vote in a PAP candidate who will work with the government to improve your lives. They tell you that they have always been here for you.

Who has been here for you and working with you for the past 20 years to improve your lives? Not the PAP for sure. They have been working against you to make your lives miserable.

How dare they come and expect your vote now.

The PAP put Hougang at the end of the queue for HDB upgrading. Well, 20 years have passed, and we have already reached the end of the queue. The Government promised that all eligible flats, even in opposition wards, will be given lift upgrading by 2014 . That is just two years away.

On Tuesday night, Mr Png Eng Huat listed out the blocks that the town council has nominated for upgrading.

So upgrading is no longer an issue. You will get upgrading, even if you vote for the Workers’ Party.

With that out of the way, I urge you, voters of Hougang, to think about your future and your children’s future as you vote.

Hougang has been the shining light of democracy for over 20 years. Do you want to keep it that way?

The PAP asks you to vote for change. But leopard cannot change its spots. You cannot have change if you vote for the PAP.

Mr Desmond Choo cannot pressure the PAP government to change. He is not an independent voice like he claims to be. He is part of the PAP.

If you want change, vote for the Workers’ Party.

DPM Teo Chee Hean keeps implying that our candidate is not our best man for Hougang and that we are taking Hougang voters for granted.

But the PAP fielded in this by election their worst performing candidate from the 2011 General Election. Mr Desmond Choo got just 35% of the votes.

If the PAP is serious about winning Hougang, why don’t they field one of their minister-calibre candidates here? They are so full of talent, aren’t they?

There are three ministers who were forced into early retirement last year after they lost in Aljunied GRC. Why not field them instead of Mr Choo?

So tell me, who is taking Hougang voters for granted?

We have put forward Png Eng Huat because we believe he is the best man for Hougang.

He understands Hougang residents. He has a track record of serving Hougang residents since 2006. He demonstrated through his actions that he cares for you and will look after you well.

He will speak up boldly for you in Parliament.

Voters of Hougang, in two days’ time when you walk into the polling booth, send a message to the PAP that the people of Hougang continue to stand tall, and stand proud, and will never, never be intimidated by the PAP.

Vote for the Workers’ Party. Vote for Png Eng Huat!