I refer to “Four highlights from the Young Guns forum”. link Four members from different political parties attended the forum organised by the NUS Students’ Political Association.
1 WP’s Pritam Singh highlighted the issue of a politicised grassroots affiliated to the PAP. The PAP has been using grassroots as its extension of sorts and at one stage even elevated the status of grassroots members to VIP at community events. Grassroots organisations receive funding from the government (taxpayers) but have been serving only the the interests of the PAP.
Unelected PAP ‘grassroots leaders’ do not represent the people. Koh Poh Koon, a.k.a. Son of Punggol, lost in the by-election but has been allowed by the PAP to assume ‘representative’ status and given publicity through our state controlled media. This is morally repugnant. The PAP has refused to accept an election loss and continues to ignore the demands of citizens to cease such a logic defying practice.
Baey Yam Keng appeared to be speechlessly ‘stuck in the past’ and commented “That is the system here”. He doesn’t seem to know much of Singapore’s history. Lee Kuan Yew once said: “We decide what is right. Never mind what the people think”. So Baey now knows that our systems and policies were simply shoved down the throats of citizens. I hope Baey’s constituents will take note he is not against such a system.
Baey also “does not doubt the sincerity and commitment of these volunteers who work very hard on the ground”. Allow me to share an open secret with Baey – almost all PAP grassroots members have personal agendas to the extent that they have worked against the party they are supposed to serve.
Question: How could grassroots be so sincere and hardworking until one GRC fell to the opposition? Why were concerns of Punggol East constituents not highlighted, and issues resolved, until an SMC was lost? It appears Baey loves to have more debates in Parliament with more opposition members.
Asked by a student if Baey was for or against such an unfair system, Baey indicated he prefers the status quo. He felt the system has benefitted Singaporeans. It seems most of us who have been providing constructive criticism to help improve the system have been wasting our time. PM Lee should not have asked Singaporeans who cow pei cow bu to join the PAP if we want change since Baey already confirmed PAP’s preference for the status quo to remain. (Baey represents the PAP)http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/pap-leaders-call-activists-fight-what-it-believes
Constituents are not stupid or easily swayed by any amount of wayang to vote for an insincere MP. In an age where social media trumps our government mouthpiece, no amount of press coverage by the mainstream media can mask the truth.
Score: Pritam 1, Baey 0
2 On the issue of change since GE2011, Baey cited changes in housing, education and health care without supporting statistics.
In Jan last year, Minister Khaw said that about 200,000 residential units will be built within 4 years. Perhaps Baey was referring to this short term planning to resolving his party’s blunders as ‘changes in housing’. link Singaporeans were looking forward to a meaningful change such as a drop in housing prices to an affordable level. This was of course wishful thinking on our part.
On the issue of health care, Baey’s ‘change’ must be the substitution of concrete buildings for hospital patients with tents.
SDP’s Ms Chee said there was insufficient change (improvement) in infrastructure, income gap and Singaporeans’ well being. NSP’s Mr Syafarin Sarif also highlighted another relevant issue – have more diverse voices in Parliament. Both resonated more with ordinary Singaporeans than Baey.
Score: Chee 1, Syafarin 1, Baey 0
3 On the issue of space for more voices, Baey urged netizens to be accountable and avoid personal attacks. But what about untrue articles in the mainstream media such as SOMEONE’s uncle being fed to the dogs? Baey was silent on accountability, probably due to the government control of the mainstream media. Baey continued to insist on “the authority to make the call” and said the government “shoud be respected”. Should Singaporeans respect those who practice double standard?
Ms Chee and Mr Syafarin were spot on when they said that opposition views were always brushed off.
Baey said there is a way to challenge the law and change the law beside burning effigies. He did not mention how but Baey should know that we are talking about laws put up by PAP, designed to trip all non PAP and to perpetuate itself in power ie Town Councils, GRCS, etc. The PAP government has put in place a ridiculous formula for perpetual fare hikes and a biased Pubic Transport Council (PTC) which has insisted that fare hikes and breakdowns are separate issues.http://ride.asiaone.com/news/general/story/fare-hike-and-breakdowns-are-separate-issues-ptc This puts commuters at the mercy of our government-controlled transport operators. Can Baey shed some light on ways to challenge and turn this miserable situation around instead of some ivory tower talk?
Score: Chee 1, Syafarin 1, Baey 0
4 As for self rating, the only party with a passing mark was the PAP. The NSP was indeed humble and upfront, rating itself an F9. Perhaps the NSP would like to conduct a few lessons on humility for the PAP. The WP and SDP declined to assess itself.
Score: none as their perceptions on this issue do not affect Singaporeans.
Conclusion
The comments on social media show a huge support for Pritam Singh followed by a SDP/NSP tie. The issue of politicising grassroots resonated with the majority of Singaporeans who feel frustrated that despite years of feedback to the government, taxppayers’ money continues to be used to further PAP’s political objectives. This accounts for the additional points for Pritam Singh. Many also felt Baey’s mind was still on his $2.50 nasi padang and his divorced-from-reality answers had irked most of the audience and netizens. This accounts for the ZERO rating.
PS
Please note I am not a member of any political party.
Phillip Ang
TRS Contributor
Related:
http://therealsingapore.com/content/driver-still-sleeping-co-driver-drowsy-passengers-unhappier