The election results were all released by 3am in the morning. While I wouldn't be expecting that the PAP will lose, but I had better expectations, especially over some contested areas. Here are some of the disappointments:
1) Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC
Votes: Chiam See Tong's Team (43.06%) vs. Wong Kan Seng's Team (56.94%)
- I was expecting CST to win by a thin margin, considering that he managed to guard Potong Pasir for about 2 decades already, and his charisma. His biggest and only weakness is his age and poor health. WKS had to be responsible for Mas Selamat's escape by stepping down from minister position, but yet he remains intact. I REALLY wondered about what those people at Bishan-Toa Payoh were thinking... That's not to mention I've heard from my friend living there that they removed some facilities (cameras in lift) on the pretext of cost saving...
2) Marine Parade GRC
Votes: Nichole Seah's Team (43.35%) vs Goh Chok Tong & Tin Pei Ling Team (56.65%)
- Frankly speaking, the moment GCT is on any team, it's a sure win for PAP, just like LHL & LKY. Nichole Seah fought a good fight, though I feel that her party in general were a tad lacking in being more forward looking. Too much time wasted by NSP on exchanging verbal lashes and merely verbal expression of the passion to serve. However, the tighter margin could be made, due to Nichole's maturity and charisma, and TPL's lack of aforementioned. Then again, if you look at the other results of NSP (which average around 30ish percent), I guess this 10% upswing from their average is already relatively impressive.
3) Potong Pasir SMC
Votes: Lina Loh (49.64%) vs Sitoh Yih Pin (50.36%)
- I sure was expecting CST's wife to be able to guard this place, albeit with a very thin margin. There's alot of affection from the ground towards CST in that area. Looks like I was only half-right. The margin was thin. Difference of 114 votes, with scrapped votes of around 250. The scrapped votes could have made the difference. With this lost, the last stronghold of SPP is gone, and probably also marks the end of CST's political journey. People will commemorate his spirit in many years to come.
It's not all bad news though. Tonight, Singaporeans have made history! Starting with:
1) Aljunied GRC
Votes: Low Thia Khiang's Team (54.71%) vs George Yeo's Team (45.29%)
- An opposition succeeded in challenging for a GRC for the 1st time in Singapore's history! It comes as no surprise given Mr Low's popularity, charisma and efficiency as demonstrating in his well-running of Hougang, A-class team members, and his "slap the driver" theory. LOL! Frankly speaking, George Yeo's team ain't a pushover idea, given 3 ministers onboard and that he himself is one of the best minister. Or at the very least, he makes no major mistake thus far, and is probably one of the most internet-savvy minister. On top of his softer approach in this election, it lends him very positive sentiments on the internet. Even with him losing, supporters of the oppositions are generally in favor of him running for other important positions, and perhaps even replace TPL with him. His son is wise to advise him on how to manage Gen-Y indeed. Anyway, this should not be the end of the story for LTK's team, considering 54.71% is a relatively small margin. His team needs to work even harder to win the favor of the Aljunied residents and honoring his objective to push for a world-class parliament, or risk being put back at step one in 5 years time.
2) Hougang SMC
Votes: Desmond Choo (35.19%) vs Yaw Shin Leong (64.81%)
- This is also a battle won brilliantly by the WP, and also one that is generally expected to be won, since the hougang residents are extremely supportive of WP. It's also an interesting duel between the two, because both are young adults of my age group, and are teochews, just like myself and most of the people in Hougang. I would have trusted that LTK placed a reasonably strong reserve to guard the WP's stronghold, before deciding to venture out of it. Like George Yeo, Desmond Choo's lost was not due to his own incompetency, but due to the sentiments of the local people, similar to that CST at Potong Pasir. And I find it VERY commendable, because Desmond Choo accepted the lost gracefully, congratulated his rival and commit to continue working with his rival to take care of the local people's welfare and concerns. This is a strong contrast to Desmond Lim from SDA who blamed his critical lost (4.45% @ Punggol East) to the brand of his own party.
Conclusion: I'm not sure of what to make of the general outlook for Singapore. The PAP doesn't have a strong mandate. The oppositions as a whole made alot of sacrifices and compromises in order to avoid competition with each other. Those oppositions who did not win a single seat, at least manage to dent the statistics of historical PAP supports. This isn't something that the WP could have done by itself. So it surely rings the alarm for PAP. After all, if you can actually look at the demographic of the age group of the voters, the PAP has a bunk of diehard supporters who are from gen-X, and this number is decreasing, due to passing away, etc. Also, social media plays an importantly role is raising people's awareness of politics, giving the opposition a more balanced playing field in terms of publicity, which could explain the approx 10% swing in votes towards the oppositions. The oppositions are also specifically targeting the middle and lower class income, which statistically is more than merely the higher income people. If the oppositions were to increase its popularity, they would need very diversified plans for the country, where even the higher income group would be interested in, as well as having a positive track record, so that the middle income group are convinced that the oppositions are just as (if not more) capable than the PAP candidates. The next 5 years will be a trial for the workers' party, whether if the mandates given by the people are deserving. The PAP, on the other hand, will need to reform itself, preferably by nominating new ministers for the next 10 years, and/or changing the style of the party, from that high-handed style ("I tell you what is good for you"), to something more even-handed and receptive ("Please let me know what are your concerns, so I can help you").
This ends my analysis for GE2011. (And I don't get to vote this year... AGAIN!)
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Unfair Opportunities?
I refer to an article on FTs being invited to SG to study:
http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2663008&st=0
Similarly, I've heard alot of stories about FTs being heavily subsidized for education and training in SG, as well as the relative ease of getting a PR identity immediately after graduating.
The irony is that Singaporeans are not given this privilege, other than the few who qualify for presidential scholarship. As for me, I couldn't get into the local uni and had to depend on my poor parents to loan me the money for my tution fees to get into a private uni.
I'm not agree with the FTs or blame them if they don't feel anything about this country. To begin with, they just only came over cos' there's a good deal. Education is almost free for them. Besides, it's not their country in the 1st place. Just reap the benefits and move back home afterwards. At most, only stuck in SG for a few years as part of the bond. But as for the rest of the Singaporeans, we are paying for their higher education, but struggling to pay for our own.
What I'm rather upset with, is what was PAP's idea in doing so? Last official statistics reveal that 40% of SG populations are not even native Singaporeans, but a combination of PRs and FTs. Getting FTs to improve our economy is only a mere smokescreen. Either that, or a VERY careless handling of the inflow of FTs...
Should we vote for the oppositions? It's not a clear answer. At the end of the day, one cannot assume there's any saint in politics, and voting is only to choose the lesser evil.
Recently saw the comment of a friend on FB, which I thought it's rather upsetting. He appears more ready to trust the PAP, just because they started apologising. There comes a time that one may choose to forgive a person, because he appears to be sincere. But this is not the time, because people will still continue to be harmed while the wrongdoers are forgiven. Just as the million dollars ministers' salary. By continuing to vote for these people, you are saying that it is ok that there are people at the lowest level who are still starving while the ministers, despite the issues already raised in parliament, choose to do nothing about it, because they already given them 2 meals a day. It is easy to vote in terms of self-interests, rather than the bigger perspective, because other problems are "none of your business". Similarly, I was also reminded of yet another well-to-do friend who's disinterested in politics because people are just over-exaggerating their grievance towards the ruling party, and that he has the opportunity to live in the US anyway. The death of osama seemed like a more salient issue to him than this coming GE where there's finally a gleams of opportunity for Singaporeans. Well, it's none of his business if the govt tax is 100% in SG, if he never comes back to SG anyway.
http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showtopic=2663008&st=0
Similarly, I've heard alot of stories about FTs being heavily subsidized for education and training in SG, as well as the relative ease of getting a PR identity immediately after graduating.
The irony is that Singaporeans are not given this privilege, other than the few who qualify for presidential scholarship. As for me, I couldn't get into the local uni and had to depend on my poor parents to loan me the money for my tution fees to get into a private uni.
I'm not agree with the FTs or blame them if they don't feel anything about this country. To begin with, they just only came over cos' there's a good deal. Education is almost free for them. Besides, it's not their country in the 1st place. Just reap the benefits and move back home afterwards. At most, only stuck in SG for a few years as part of the bond. But as for the rest of the Singaporeans, we are paying for their higher education, but struggling to pay for our own.
What I'm rather upset with, is what was PAP's idea in doing so? Last official statistics reveal that 40% of SG populations are not even native Singaporeans, but a combination of PRs and FTs. Getting FTs to improve our economy is only a mere smokescreen. Either that, or a VERY careless handling of the inflow of FTs...
Should we vote for the oppositions? It's not a clear answer. At the end of the day, one cannot assume there's any saint in politics, and voting is only to choose the lesser evil.
Recently saw the comment of a friend on FB, which I thought it's rather upsetting. He appears more ready to trust the PAP, just because they started apologising. There comes a time that one may choose to forgive a person, because he appears to be sincere. But this is not the time, because people will still continue to be harmed while the wrongdoers are forgiven. Just as the million dollars ministers' salary. By continuing to vote for these people, you are saying that it is ok that there are people at the lowest level who are still starving while the ministers, despite the issues already raised in parliament, choose to do nothing about it, because they already given them 2 meals a day. It is easy to vote in terms of self-interests, rather than the bigger perspective, because other problems are "none of your business". Similarly, I was also reminded of yet another well-to-do friend who's disinterested in politics because people are just over-exaggerating their grievance towards the ruling party, and that he has the opportunity to live in the US anyway. The death of osama seemed like a more salient issue to him than this coming GE where there's finally a gleams of opportunity for Singaporeans. Well, it's none of his business if the govt tax is 100% in SG, if he never comes back to SG anyway.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
George Yeo's Message
Just came back from ISORG exam. Finally one paper down.
Just watched a video of Minister George Yeo's personal message to youth. General message is that he'll learn to better listen to the opinions, in particular that of the younger generations in future, regardless of whether votes goes to him or not for the coming election. And he appears sincere, to add. There's no more of those threats like "Singapore's progress will definitely be handicapped if you don't vote for PAP", or "You need to examine the oppositions' claims carefully.".
To be fair with him, his performance as a minister is reasonably good enough. Perhaps due to the fact that he's in-charge of managing foreign relationship, and therefore he doesn't have much opportunity to incur the wrath of citizens, unlike the other ministers who needs to tinker with domestic policies.
However, why now? Why is it that suddenly he is willing to listen to our opinions only when election draw close and there's a high likelihood that he'll lose his area's GRC (Aljunied) due to LTK personally leaving Hougang and leading candidates to contest his area? What was happening during the 10 years time that the current leaders were in office?
Here's how I see it: PAP is no longer capable of self-regulating and balancing the needs of the people to nation's objective. And it cannot revitalise itself via the efforts of a few truly sincere mps or ministers. As such, it is necessary to introduce oppositions to the parliament, which does listen to our voice and provide feedback, if not fresh ideas on how to run the state. This will forces PAP to get serious, which is in the nation's interest. I believe PAP is still likely to be the ruling party anyway, until the aging supporters of the PAP gradually decline. The supporters of the oppositions are mainly the working classes who have been impacted by the side effects of the policies, the younger generations who research (i hope) about the parties to vote, and international observers (albeit their influence is not a direct one since they don't have voting rights). Besisdes, I would also like to believe that it is not the end of the world even if the voters vote of undeserving oppositions in the coming election, since if they do not perform, similarly they would be given the boot, albeit 5 years later.
So in short, it's really nothing personally, even if George Yeo loses his area. But how will his colleagues see him, and what will become of him, will be a mystery. If he's good, hopefully he stays in the parliament, perhaps by running for the presidency? There's still chance to serve anyway, unless PAP decides to give him a boot.
Just to digress abit. I've been thinking about what the oppositions suggested, and I could understand the strategy that LTK is trying to play, by not revealing their plans too early. Underpromise, overdeliver and that's how to keep people happy. Besides, they can't do anything if the govt doesn't give them money to deliver what they promised. Anyway, people are also more ready to trust the oppositions anyway, even if their plans were vague, esp for WP and SPP with proven records, because people already angry with PAP. But at the end of the day, if PAP really does clean out its act, i doubt most people actually care who's the ruling party anyway. All voters have the same desire for good governance, regardless of who they support. (Unless we look at conspiracy theory).
With regards to the ministers' salary, frankly speaking, it doesn't bother me, IF they are able to achieve perfect governance and control the cost of living to the extend that NOBODY in the country has to starve or worry about their liability or shelter, and EVERYONE is able to enjoy a Switz-standard of living, as long as they are willing to work. All is well, as long as the quality of life is not affected. However, since it appears that it is impossible (i doubt any country achieved that yet) and also that the govt kept preaching the doctrine of self-reliance, it appears that the salary of the ministers need to be brought down, so that they do not enjoy stability of income for minimal efforts. In my opinion, any gain in total revenue to the nations treasury from the nation's growth, should 1st and foremost be distributed to help the lowest income group in the nation. This is especially since some of these families are permanently incapable of working, perhaps due to extreme old age, or physically/mentally handicapped. Then, another portion should be distributed to help local SMEs grow. A third portion should be saved, and finally the fourth portion to be given to ministers and mps as bonus for their contribution for the year.
Last thing that is completely irrelevant. I saw a PRC lady giving up her seat to an elderly. That's a nice sight for once. =)
Just watched a video of Minister George Yeo's personal message to youth. General message is that he'll learn to better listen to the opinions, in particular that of the younger generations in future, regardless of whether votes goes to him or not for the coming election. And he appears sincere, to add. There's no more of those threats like "Singapore's progress will definitely be handicapped if you don't vote for PAP", or "You need to examine the oppositions' claims carefully.".
To be fair with him, his performance as a minister is reasonably good enough. Perhaps due to the fact that he's in-charge of managing foreign relationship, and therefore he doesn't have much opportunity to incur the wrath of citizens, unlike the other ministers who needs to tinker with domestic policies.
However, why now? Why is it that suddenly he is willing to listen to our opinions only when election draw close and there's a high likelihood that he'll lose his area's GRC (Aljunied) due to LTK personally leaving Hougang and leading candidates to contest his area? What was happening during the 10 years time that the current leaders were in office?
Here's how I see it: PAP is no longer capable of self-regulating and balancing the needs of the people to nation's objective. And it cannot revitalise itself via the efforts of a few truly sincere mps or ministers. As such, it is necessary to introduce oppositions to the parliament, which does listen to our voice and provide feedback, if not fresh ideas on how to run the state. This will forces PAP to get serious, which is in the nation's interest. I believe PAP is still likely to be the ruling party anyway, until the aging supporters of the PAP gradually decline. The supporters of the oppositions are mainly the working classes who have been impacted by the side effects of the policies, the younger generations who research (i hope) about the parties to vote, and international observers (albeit their influence is not a direct one since they don't have voting rights). Besisdes, I would also like to believe that it is not the end of the world even if the voters vote of undeserving oppositions in the coming election, since if they do not perform, similarly they would be given the boot, albeit 5 years later.
So in short, it's really nothing personally, even if George Yeo loses his area. But how will his colleagues see him, and what will become of him, will be a mystery. If he's good, hopefully he stays in the parliament, perhaps by running for the presidency? There's still chance to serve anyway, unless PAP decides to give him a boot.
Just to digress abit. I've been thinking about what the oppositions suggested, and I could understand the strategy that LTK is trying to play, by not revealing their plans too early. Underpromise, overdeliver and that's how to keep people happy. Besides, they can't do anything if the govt doesn't give them money to deliver what they promised. Anyway, people are also more ready to trust the oppositions anyway, even if their plans were vague, esp for WP and SPP with proven records, because people already angry with PAP. But at the end of the day, if PAP really does clean out its act, i doubt most people actually care who's the ruling party anyway. All voters have the same desire for good governance, regardless of who they support. (Unless we look at conspiracy theory).
With regards to the ministers' salary, frankly speaking, it doesn't bother me, IF they are able to achieve perfect governance and control the cost of living to the extend that NOBODY in the country has to starve or worry about their liability or shelter, and EVERYONE is able to enjoy a Switz-standard of living, as long as they are willing to work. All is well, as long as the quality of life is not affected. However, since it appears that it is impossible (i doubt any country achieved that yet) and also that the govt kept preaching the doctrine of self-reliance, it appears that the salary of the ministers need to be brought down, so that they do not enjoy stability of income for minimal efforts. In my opinion, any gain in total revenue to the nations treasury from the nation's growth, should 1st and foremost be distributed to help the lowest income group in the nation. This is especially since some of these families are permanently incapable of working, perhaps due to extreme old age, or physically/mentally handicapped. Then, another portion should be distributed to help local SMEs grow. A third portion should be saved, and finally the fourth portion to be given to ministers and mps as bonus for their contribution for the year.
Last thing that is completely irrelevant. I saw a PRC lady giving up her seat to an elderly. That's a nice sight for once. =)
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Possible Change in Singapore Political Planescape
It's kinda strange but I would never thought that I would actually pay so much attention to politics. To me, politics is just about cheating and winning. At the end of the day, it's not really about who is the most capable, but who is best at convincing people or handicapping others. And after election, life goes on, except the winner gets more say in how the country should be run, and more importantly how many zeroes are there behind one's salary. I assume that all these hasn't change yet, but this year is a little different, given the sudden massive uprising and challenge by opposition parties against the incumbent. The monopolist is shaken.
Let me begin delving on this topic on a lighter note. I remembered when I was young, we've been pushed to excel in academics. We were advised by parents and relatives that one needs to excel in academics in order to make a living. This... "passport" called certification. We slough through kindergarden, all the way to university, "stepping" on top of others in the process of "success". And we are so proud of ourselves for that. Yes, I know this is the reality of life, but is this what we really want? Maybe it might not matter what we want, since we cannot change reality. Oh. Really? Is that self-fulfilling prophecy in the making? Would anyone have at least done something insignificant, in hope that things would one day change? Anyway, about almost 10 years ago from today, I was told that almost all the young working populations are at least a degree holder. And I suspect that it will be Masters in another 10 years time.
What am I getting at? Why are we so... strangled by meritocracy? It's because of competition, and Singapore needs these type of unhealthy competition in order to thrive. Or so the PAP thinks. I need to clarify myself 1st. I'm not disagree that we should not have competition, but rather, we should make it a healthier one. When one's future is highly dependent solely on academic success, people will go all out for it, whether they like it all not. Some people are just better off that others academically. Some are just luckier that they were able to afford external tutions or come from knowledgeable families to help their kids "succeed". The playing field was never levelled. On a sidenote, overemphasize on education also means we are naturally short on talents in other areas. As such, we have to induct foreign talents to make up for what we don't have, and then we call these people "Singaporeans" too.
What the source of all these problems? Education. The PAP did not seemed to have the foresight to rectify the problems in our education system. At least, not until it's a tad too late now. How does Singapore wants to stay competitive? She first needs to recognise that it could compete from many angles, despite it's lack of natural resources. Any childhood psychologist can tell you that every child has different inclinations and potentials. Rather than forces them to do what they are not inclined towards, it's better to discover and develop their strengths. Does a better education system exist? Probably. Take a look at Switzerland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Switzerland
A system of apprenticeship with private companies make the knowledge that we gain more relevant. And we get to choose to go into fields we are better at. It's even ranked 1st in terms of Global Competitiveness by World Economic Forum! A further reading also reveals that the education system at some levels are highly focused on group performances, just like I polytechnic. But wait! It's almost the end if you get into polytechnic since it's difficult to get into the public university unless you're in the top 3% of the cohort! And without a degree in Singapore, you will find that you'll need workfare really soon in 20 years in an average job. Another point here to make is that education should teach cooperation at early stage of a student life, if it were to inculcate this positive value.
What? An ordinary citizen can't change the education system? Bugger. Then who can change? The government! But... who's the government? It was PAP, and they have been the incumbent for about 5 decades already. Its contribution in the 1st 3 decades was admirable, but things were about going downhill in many aspects in esp. the last decade. I wouldn't even list the screw-ups since I believe the media and oppositions have been repeating them over and over like a broken record, due to the election period. But I've stated 1 of my main concern and suggestions above, which I thought that neither the opposition nor PAP actually addresses at all.
I may seemed like an opposition supporter now, but it doesn't mean I do not weigh the value of what was said by the PAP. For example, I do agree with MM Lee that we should not move away from the manufacturing industries and focus on service industries, as per suggestion of SDP's candidate Tan Jee Say. After all, a healthy portfolio has a good mix of investments in different industries. But I would like to caution about bringing in FTs to replace existing Singaporeans, regardless of whichever industries. And that has already been the case with the 2 IRs in Singapore, with the majority of the higher mgt and base jobs going to the FTs. Singaporeans are only the really thin patty in the middle. So much for creating job opportunities.
My final concern is with how the government is going to help the poor. Yes, I know there's workfares and some low-income assistance schemes. But from what I've read (the issue was raised by my area's MP Dr Lily Neo... PAP's MP but really fabulous lady), at the really low level, the assistance schemes are only able to pay off for 2 meals a day, which equates to $6/day. All is well and fine. Wait. 2 Meals? Is that called subsistence? At the lowest level, most of them have no means of wealth growth, and they have no means of getting an income. Worse still, what happens if they need medical coverage? And what about housing loans, if any? Well, her colleagues in parliament rebutted her with the model answers of what the govt has done to help the lower income group. But Dr Neo's question was not answer, cos the problem is mention still exist AFTER all these temporary aids. Then came Dr. Balakrishnan's doctrine of no-reliance... to not advocate people's over-reliance on the govt. A be-all-end-all answer to say no to additional funding despite posting good financial results for the year. The problem here is that those at the lowest level are permanently incapable of making a living already. So should the govt just let them die since they cannot contribute?
I'm rather disturbed by this, because of where I live in. Everyday, I can see some old people sleeping on benches or cupboards below my flat when night falls. And I remembered an old lady who would lay a styrofoam box on the floor and display a few miserable stalks of parsley or leek, or 1 or 2 tomatoes of carrot, hoping that someone would buy them. My mom seemed to know this old lady and happened to find out that those are stuffs that people donated to her. And she was still sitting there until 9pm. What is the government doing to help these people all these while? Really... I don't know. In my capacity, there's only so much I can do if I buy from her, so she at least earn enough for another meal, but I can't be doing that everyday. Then, how is she going to take care of her next meal? This, is poor. Not about not being able to afford IPhone. For the most of us including myself, we're somewhat closer to the middle class. For the record, I can't afford an IPhone... yet, and I might not be keen anyway. I digressed.
And that is all I have to say.
Let me begin delving on this topic on a lighter note. I remembered when I was young, we've been pushed to excel in academics. We were advised by parents and relatives that one needs to excel in academics in order to make a living. This... "passport" called certification. We slough through kindergarden, all the way to university, "stepping" on top of others in the process of "success". And we are so proud of ourselves for that. Yes, I know this is the reality of life, but is this what we really want? Maybe it might not matter what we want, since we cannot change reality. Oh. Really? Is that self-fulfilling prophecy in the making? Would anyone have at least done something insignificant, in hope that things would one day change? Anyway, about almost 10 years ago from today, I was told that almost all the young working populations are at least a degree holder. And I suspect that it will be Masters in another 10 years time.
What am I getting at? Why are we so... strangled by meritocracy? It's because of competition, and Singapore needs these type of unhealthy competition in order to thrive. Or so the PAP thinks. I need to clarify myself 1st. I'm not disagree that we should not have competition, but rather, we should make it a healthier one. When one's future is highly dependent solely on academic success, people will go all out for it, whether they like it all not. Some people are just better off that others academically. Some are just luckier that they were able to afford external tutions or come from knowledgeable families to help their kids "succeed". The playing field was never levelled. On a sidenote, overemphasize on education also means we are naturally short on talents in other areas. As such, we have to induct foreign talents to make up for what we don't have, and then we call these people "Singaporeans" too.
What the source of all these problems? Education. The PAP did not seemed to have the foresight to rectify the problems in our education system. At least, not until it's a tad too late now. How does Singapore wants to stay competitive? She first needs to recognise that it could compete from many angles, despite it's lack of natural resources. Any childhood psychologist can tell you that every child has different inclinations and potentials. Rather than forces them to do what they are not inclined towards, it's better to discover and develop their strengths. Does a better education system exist? Probably. Take a look at Switzerland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Switzerland
A system of apprenticeship with private companies make the knowledge that we gain more relevant. And we get to choose to go into fields we are better at. It's even ranked 1st in terms of Global Competitiveness by World Economic Forum! A further reading also reveals that the education system at some levels are highly focused on group performances, just like I polytechnic. But wait! It's almost the end if you get into polytechnic since it's difficult to get into the public university unless you're in the top 3% of the cohort! And without a degree in Singapore, you will find that you'll need workfare really soon in 20 years in an average job. Another point here to make is that education should teach cooperation at early stage of a student life, if it were to inculcate this positive value.
What? An ordinary citizen can't change the education system? Bugger. Then who can change? The government! But... who's the government? It was PAP, and they have been the incumbent for about 5 decades already. Its contribution in the 1st 3 decades was admirable, but things were about going downhill in many aspects in esp. the last decade. I wouldn't even list the screw-ups since I believe the media and oppositions have been repeating them over and over like a broken record, due to the election period. But I've stated 1 of my main concern and suggestions above, which I thought that neither the opposition nor PAP actually addresses at all.
I may seemed like an opposition supporter now, but it doesn't mean I do not weigh the value of what was said by the PAP. For example, I do agree with MM Lee that we should not move away from the manufacturing industries and focus on service industries, as per suggestion of SDP's candidate Tan Jee Say. After all, a healthy portfolio has a good mix of investments in different industries. But I would like to caution about bringing in FTs to replace existing Singaporeans, regardless of whichever industries. And that has already been the case with the 2 IRs in Singapore, with the majority of the higher mgt and base jobs going to the FTs. Singaporeans are only the really thin patty in the middle. So much for creating job opportunities.
My final concern is with how the government is going to help the poor. Yes, I know there's workfares and some low-income assistance schemes. But from what I've read (the issue was raised by my area's MP Dr Lily Neo... PAP's MP but really fabulous lady), at the really low level, the assistance schemes are only able to pay off for 2 meals a day, which equates to $6/day. All is well and fine. Wait. 2 Meals? Is that called subsistence? At the lowest level, most of them have no means of wealth growth, and they have no means of getting an income. Worse still, what happens if they need medical coverage? And what about housing loans, if any? Well, her colleagues in parliament rebutted her with the model answers of what the govt has done to help the lower income group. But Dr Neo's question was not answer, cos the problem is mention still exist AFTER all these temporary aids. Then came Dr. Balakrishnan's doctrine of no-reliance... to not advocate people's over-reliance on the govt. A be-all-end-all answer to say no to additional funding despite posting good financial results for the year. The problem here is that those at the lowest level are permanently incapable of making a living already. So should the govt just let them die since they cannot contribute?
I'm rather disturbed by this, because of where I live in. Everyday, I can see some old people sleeping on benches or cupboards below my flat when night falls. And I remembered an old lady who would lay a styrofoam box on the floor and display a few miserable stalks of parsley or leek, or 1 or 2 tomatoes of carrot, hoping that someone would buy them. My mom seemed to know this old lady and happened to find out that those are stuffs that people donated to her. And she was still sitting there until 9pm. What is the government doing to help these people all these while? Really... I don't know. In my capacity, there's only so much I can do if I buy from her, so she at least earn enough for another meal, but I can't be doing that everyday. Then, how is she going to take care of her next meal? This, is poor. Not about not being able to afford IPhone. For the most of us including myself, we're somewhat closer to the middle class. For the record, I can't afford an IPhone... yet, and I might not be keen anyway. I digressed.
And that is all I have to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
