Your vote is secret

Let’s be very clear: YOUR VOTE IS SECRET. I will take you through the whole balloting process to see why. Vote with your conscience, not with fear!

Many Singaporeans harbour the misconception that their vote during elections is not secret. I’ve talked to many people, both educated and less educated, and the overwhelming majority seem to think this way. This is despite the fact that at every election, the Elections Department takes pains to communicate to voters two main points: Voting is compulsory, and voting is secret. I guess this is a point that Singaporeans just refuse to believe our government about.

It is even more unfortunate that some persist in perpetuating this urban myth, which only serves to strike more fear into the hearts of Singaporeans who are thinking of voting for the opposition. A letter in Temasek Review today exhorted Singaporeans to spoil their votes because, the writer reasoned, then the PAP won’t “mark” you for voting against them and if there are enough invalid votes, it will indirectly increase the opposition’s share of the valid vote.

This is wrong on many counts. I’ll highlight just two: Firstly, the PAP does not know which party you voted for, so they won’t know who to “mark”, even if they wanted to. Secondly, invalid votes do not factor in the final count, which is based on valid votes. This means that if there were 10 votes–six for the PAP, three for the opposition and one spoiled–the final tally is 66.6 per cent to the PAP (six divided by nine, with the spoiled vote excluded), not 60 per cent.

Let’s be very clear: YOUR VOTE IS SECRET. I will take you through the whole balloting process to see why:

Continue reading “Your vote is secret”

WP’s Parliamentary Questions (15 Sep 2010)

Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim is to query Ministers on YOG expenditure, anti-speculation measures for properties, non-Singaporeans working as security officers and about persons connected to Yong Vui Kong.

Workers’ Party chairman and NCMP Sylvia Lim will ask the following questions in Parliament on 15 September 2010:

1. To ask Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports:

(a) why is the final budget for the Youth Olympic Games more than triple the original estimate;

(b) where were the additional funds drawn from;

(c) whether any of his Ministry programmes were cut back for this purpose; and

(d) what was the amount paid for the tickets purchased by the Ministry of Education and whether this was also part of the YOG budget.

2. To ask the Minister for National Development:

(a) if he will explain the basis on which the new anti-speculation measures announced on 30 August 2010 were devised; and

(b) whether any assessment was done on their impact on genuine home buyers and Singaporean investors.

3. To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs:

(a) what is the proportion of licences that are issued to non-Singapore citizens to work as security officers; and

(b) what proportion of licensees are not working in that industry.

4. To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government has detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act any person believed to have been organising drug trafficking activities which involved Yong Vui Kong, an inmate on death row.

Selamat Hari Raya

I’d like to wish all my Muslim readers Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri and Eid Mubarak. Maaf zahir dan batin (especially for any wrong stuff I wrote on my blog!)

I’d like to wish all my Muslim readers Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri and Eid Mubarak. Maaf zahir dan batin (especially for any wrong stuff I wrote on my blog!)

Selamat Hari Raya

PAP of today = PAP of the 1960s and 70s?

My Workers’ Party colleague, Pritam Singh, wrote an excellent article on his blog, titled “The PAP’s Retirement Nightmare: 2nd and 3rd Generation PAP policymakers to blame?”

In the article, Pritam asks:

Is the PAP of today the same one that pulled an entire generation out of poverty in the 1960s and 1970s, introduced sensible policies and kept political salaries within a prudent range – or is today’s PAP one that pays itself millions of dollars, while coasting along on autopilot and shrewdly making use of statistics to justify its policies, with a view to keep itself in power?

I think this is a very important question that all Singaporeans need to ask ourselves. After all, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Immigrants and foreign workers: Let’s talk real numbers

The PAP Government should stop trying to repackage and sell a flawed policy. PM Lee says his grassroots leaders “understand logically why we need immigration”. Well, unlike his loyal grassroots leaders, I simply do not buy his argument for excessive immigration, either logically or emotionally.

As expected, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong devoted the lion’s share of his National Day Rally speech yesterday to the topic of immigration, which has gotten many Singaporeans of all strata in society hot under the collar in the lead-up to an election year. This year he went into overdrive mode, spending a full hour citing conversations with heads of big foreign corporations and showcasing individual foreign workers in Singapore. From talented architects to hotel chambermaids, to good-looking medical technologists and bus drivers—all were used to justify his government’s excessive immigration policies.

Continue reading “Immigrants and foreign workers: Let’s talk real numbers”

Let’s deal with elderly poverty now

Every old person in Singapore who is struggling to survive is one too many. Singapore is not some highly indebted Third world country. We are supposed to have one of the highest standards of living in the world, going by our GDP per capita. But this is certainly not the case for more than 66,000 of our old folks. We should aim to reduce to zero the number of elderly persons who are struggling to survive because of finances.

Sunday Routine On 23 August, the Straits Times ran a story titled, “Not-so-golden years for the elderly in Singapore”. It highlighted how, according to the Active Ageing Index, our elderly are not doing well in three areas: health, financial security and community engagement.

This index was compiled by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) as part of a report titled, “The State of the Elderly in Singapore 2008/2009”, which was commissioned by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS). It can be downloaded from the MCYS website.

While health and, to a lesser extent, community engagement are important, the area I’m most concerned about for our elderly is financial security. This is also the area in which a change government policy can make a big difference in the lives of our senior citizens.

Continue reading “Let’s deal with elderly poverty now”

Voting with your head or heart? You can do both

When making a comparison between the PAP and WP teams, one should consider, how much the WP has done with its limited resources, and how much more it can do when it has the resources of five elected MPs. If I were a resident of Aljunied, choosing to support WP there would be a very rational and logical decision indeed, as well as one that will go down well with my heart and conscience!

The Straits Times did a feature length Insight article on 30 July on Aljunied Group Representational Constituency (GRC), which witnessed the fiercest contest of the 2006 General Elections (GE), between a Workers’ Party (WP) team helmed by its chairman, Sylvia Lim, and the PAP team led by George Yeo.
The article presented some interesting anecdotes from residents and insights from the politicians from both sides.
One Aljunied resident remarked that WP secretary-general MP Low Thia Khiang was “very good” because of the way he attended to his residents in neighbouring Hougang. Another long-time opposition supporter said he was 矛盾 (in a dilemma) about whom to vote for next time, because of the upgrading works that have been done since the last GE. Then he went on to say that if Sylvia Lim contests again, “I will still vote for the WP because it is important to have another voice in the Government. But not if others come.”
The upgrading works since the last GE included “spanking new gymnasiums at their doorsteps” and “colourful linkways that shelter them from the rain”. One of the PAP MPs boasted that there had been 51 linkways, 43 fitness corners, 18 drop-off porches and five gymnasiums built over the last four years. On top of that, there is an “iconic project” for each of the five divisions, such as an adventure park in Paya Lebar and a communal hall in Aljunied-Hougang.
Interestingly, ST’s street poll showed that only 40 per cent say they are pleased with the facilities, 30 per cent are happy with upgrading and 60 per cent, the transport infrastructure.
One resident, a kindergarten teacher (in which kindy, I wonder?), said she will be voting PAP because she believes “they have the clout and resources to continue with all the upgrading projects that have been ongoing”.
On the other hand, some residents felt there had been “unnecessary upgrading”, a “waste of resources” or poorly planned upgrading, like low quality lifts or inaccessible lift landing designs.
The article then painted the choice facing residents of Aljunied as being that of “head versus heart”. Their argument was that the PAP team should win hands down at the next GE “based on its performance on the ground” (i.e., upgrading works). However, voters may also make their choice with their “heart”, if they want more opposition MPs in Parliament to be a better check on the Government or be an alternative voice.
Having their cake and eating it
I am of the view that “head versus heart” is a false choice—there is no need for voters to choose one or the other. With the WP, they can have both. Here’s why:
Firstly, in terms of local concerns, the only thing that the PAP team has done, which a WP team will probably choose not to match, is their massive upgrading works. But do residents really need “colourful” linkways, spanking new gymnasiums and “iconic” adventure parks and communal halls? Some of those interviewed already said much of the upgrading appeared wasteful.
In any case, these works have already been done. Will the next team taking over the GRC—whether PAP or WP—need to do even more upgrading over the next five years? Probably not much. Furthermore, the PAP Government has pledged to complete lift upgrading works in all wards by 2014—just three years away. So neighbourhood upgrading should be a non-issue for the rational voter.
Secondly, the accessibility of MPs, traditionally measured in terms of the frequency of walkabouts or holding MPS. By these two measures, the WP has proven it can and will continue to do these—perhaps even to a greater extent than the PAP MPs.
Sylvia Lim said that her team started walkabouts a month after the last GE in 2006. In any given week, the WP has a few teams visiting the GRC. So far, the WP has visited about 500 blocks, which is no mean feat for a party without the luxury of “staff augmentation” by People’s Association grassroots leaders and government agency representatives tagging along on during their walkabouts.
Ms Lim also explained that her walkabouts often took longer, as WP team members “tend to chat more with the residents”, indicating deeper engagement during the house visits. In addition, I have no doubt that many of the WP candidates, if they win, will devote more time to their Parliamentary and constituency work than the current PAP MPs, not one of whom is a full-time MP.
Thirdly, an effective alternative party like the WP, with a significant presence of five capable MPs in Parliament, will be able to speak up loudly and clearly for ordinary Singaporeans in a way that ruling party MPs can never do.
PAP MPs claim to speak out for their residents, but they are constrained as to how far they can go without being smacked down by their party elders. These MPs know their re-election hinges on the endorsement of their party elders. Why? Because if they are not fielded by their party in the next GE, they have absolutely no chance of being elected!
In any case, as a member of a political party, they are expected to support their own party and not oppose it, so they will be hamstrung from the start. Things get even worse if they are front benchers (i.e., Ministers), of which there are three in Aljunied. They are not even supposed to challenge the Government, because they are part of the Government. Yes, they can voice out behind closed doors, but we all know that what’s mentioned behind closed doors can also be easily dismissed behind closed doors.
On the other hand, opposition MPs know that their political survival depends almost entirely on the endorsement of residents at the next election, not the PAP or even their own party leaders. So you can be sure that any opposition MPs worth their salt will go all out to serve the residents well, and speak out strongly for them in Parliament.
There is evidence to support this. Just look at how many speeches Sylvia Lim—the lone non-constituency MP—has made in Parliament criticising government policies and proposing alternatives. Speech-for-speech, point-by-point, have any of the Aljunied MPs matched her in terms of quantity or relevance over the past four years? The three Ministers in the team simply do their job of reading out Government Bills and defending Government policies. They don’t challenge the Government in Parliament. As for the two backbenchers, I cannot recall any memorable points or issues raised by them.
In summary, I feel that when making a comparison between the PAP and WP teams, one should consider, how much the WP has done with its limited resources, and how much more it can do when it has the resources of five elected MPs (or more, if other wards fall to the WP). If I were a resident of Aljunied, choosing to support WP there would be a very rational and logical decision indeed, as well as one that will go down well with my heart and conscience!

The Straits Times did a feature length Insight article on 30 July on Aljunied Group Representational Constituency (GRC), which witnessed the fiercest contest of the 2006 General Elections (GE), between a Workers’ Party (WP) team helmed by its chairman, Sylvia Lim, and the PAP team led by George Yeo.

The article presented some interesting anecdotes from residents and insights from the politicians from both sides.

Continue reading “Voting with your head or heart? You can do both”

My interview with the Straits Times

This is an excerpt of an interview I had with the Straits Times, published on 9 July 2010, shortly after I was elected to the Workers’ Party’s Central Executive Council.

This is an excerpt of an interview I had with the Straits Times on 6 July 2010, shortly after I was elected to the Workers’ Party’s Central Executive Council. The other new WP CEC members interviewed were Dr John Yam, Muhammad Faisal and Frieda Chan.

Continue reading “My interview with the Straits Times”

My interview on Yahoo! Fit to Post

This is a video interview I had with Yahoo! Singapore on their news feature Fit to Post, published on 14 and 16 July 2010. I shared about why I joined the Workers’ Party and what I think the key issues affecting Singaporeans are.

This is a video interview I had with Yahoo! Singapore on their news feature Fit to Post, published on 14 and 16 July 2010. I shared about why I joined the Workers’ Party and what I think the key issues affecting Singaporeans are. The write-ups can be found here and here.

Sylvia Lim grills Home Affairs, Environment Ministers

Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim asked several questions in Parliament yesterday, two of which touched on issues which have hit a raw nerve of many Singaporeans, namely the frequent flooding across Singapore and the security lapse at the MRT depot.

Sylvia LimWorkers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim asked several questions in Parliament yesterday, two of which touched on issues which have hit a raw nerve of many Singaporeans, namely the frequent flooding across Singapore and the security lapse at the MRT depot.

Ms Lim posed a question to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs about what role the Government plays in ensuring that security on public transport is not compromised. In response, Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam claimed that the role of the police is to only provide an ‘additional’ layer of security, when needed. He said that the primary responsibility for the day-to-day operational security of depots, stations and vehicles is that of transport operators SMRT and SBS Transit. Implicit in his statement was that his ministry is clearly not to be held accountable for the recent security breach at the MRT depot in Changi.

Ms Lim also asked the Environment and Water Resources Minister to clarify the ‘confusing statements’ in the media about the role of the barrage in the floods. The Minister said that because the barrage receives water from a large 10,000 ha network of canals and drains, areas located more centrally or further north could still be vulnerable to floods if the drains there do not have the capacity to contain water during an intense downpour.