Although PAP can no longer conceal its incompetence using the mainstream media, it has refused to adapt to change and fix its own broken system..
PAP’s inherent weaknesses are caused by its refusal to be transparent and accountable for 50 years – its priority has always been to create a whiter-than-white image in order to maintain control. Total control has allowed PAP to be unaccountable, opaque and dictate its terms of governance to citizens. But as time passes, more Singaporeans have been adversely affected by its flawed policies.
Ngiam Tong Dow: “It is the law of nature that all things must atrophy..the incumbent elite will just coast along..first sign of a grassroots revolt, they will probably collapse…”. That was in 2003 and the PAP elite has continued to coast along for another 12 years. Will there be a grassroots revolt? It’s possible considering the number of grassroots members affected by PAP’s loss of Aljuneid GRC and, now, the likely loss of more than one GRC.
But even without a grassroots revolt, the likelihood of PAP’s fall should have already been evident. After all the hot air about serving Aljuneid residents and its ‘talented’ MPs, PAP has finally decided to send a suicide squad into Aljuneid. The fact that no minister dares to stand against the WP in Aljuneid is confirmation that they do not believe in themselves. Why should constituents in other GRCs/SMCs still believe in PAP?.
All the years of bonding with Aljuneid GRC residents means nothing to PAP MPs/ministers – they need to save their hide so badly that being transferred to other safer GRCs is their top priority.
Are Sembawang residents really as stupid as PAP makes them out to be, expecting them to vote for MP wannabe Ong Ye Kung, a failure from Aljuneid? Is Minister Khaw’s GRC all that certain of victory after his unapologetic love story wayang in parliament? No sane PAP MP would want to be associated with Khaw’s dismal performance as he/she will be committing political hara kiri.
Has PAP resolved any chronic issue since the watershed 2011 GE? Record number of housing units may have been built but prices are still too high, enslaving citizens to banks for at least a quarter century. The number of buses and frequency of trains have increased but so has the population, resulting in overcrowding even during weekends. If healthcare was not too costly, most citizens would not feel that “one can die but cannot fall ill” in Singapore. As for retirement shortfall, PAP is still adamant in keeping our savings and releasing a derisory 20% of OUR money at 65. What about hundreds of millions of tax dollars spent on educational grants for foreigners, forcing locals to pay for more expensive university education overseas? What about all the ‘FTs’ who are depressing locals’ wages?
The PAP doesn’t need to resolve our problems because NONE of them are affected.
PAP’s flawed policies have adversely affected different groups of citizens. Their large numbers indicate the PAP will pay a heavy price for coasting along.
1 Retirees/CPF members – 30 years ago, PAP MP Dr Toh Chin Chye had already warned about “dipping into the CPF” to solve the problems of the aged by withholding citizens’ retirement savings through legislation. The retirement shortfall issue did not arise yesterday but was created by the PAP 30 years ago. After claiming CPF members have been heard, the CPFAP echoed PM Lee’s decision to return a 20% lump sum of OUR money at 65, adding insult to injury by leaving the retirement shortfall issue unresolved.
CPF members are left with no option but to remove PAP from power to get back our CPF.
Retiring CPF members form the largest group which is likely to seal PAP’s fate. The total number of CPF members aged 50 to 55 years in 2011 was 384,000. Excluding about 100,000 foreigners, an average of more than 50,000 CPF members turn 55 every year since 2011. Assuming only 70% (35,000) of them are fed up with the PAP for withholding their money, some 175,000 (35,000 X 5) citizens in this group will vote against PAP in 2016 (more likely 2015). Excluding 40% who had probably voted against PAP in 2011, the net increase in opposition supporters is likely to be about 105,000. Including family members and friends, we are likely to see the mother of all vote swings.
2 National Servicemen/reservists – PAP’s ‘FT’ policy has disadvantaged citizens who sacrifice to serve our country while being paid slave wages. Productivity should have been improved over the years with NS easily shortened to 6 months. NS is basically an indoctrination programme which doesn’t work on the present generation; it merely supplies the rank and file numbers to justify having more than 20 paper generals on our little red dot.
Being exposed to social media, members of the Y-generation are more intelligent and discerning where news is concerned and most do not read the Straitjacket Times. A large percentage of them would not welcome being disadvantaged and likely vote against the PAP because they know that is the only way to push for change.
3 Singles – Most singles in need of housing would definitely vote against PAP for its discrimination in public housing policy. Singles are working adults who also pay taxes. But for decades, PAP has denied singles the right to apply for a HDB flat, citing its pro family policy. But was PAP being pro family when it allowed JTC to purchase some 4,000 flats for rental to ‘foreign talents’? What about allowing 49,000 resale flats to be owned by foreigners (PRs)?
After the watershed 2011 election, PAP suddenly woke up and realised there were actually singles, about 120,000 of them aged between 35 and 50 who needed affordable housing. They were finally allowed to purchase new HDB flats in 2013 and as expected, the pent-up demand saw an over subscription rate as high as 77 times in August 2013.
The fact that 110,000 HDB units could be built within 4 years from 2013 to 2016 confirms there was never a shortage of land.
Singles who were forced to rent a room at $500 for 15 years could have become a HDB 2-room flat lessee and ceased paying rental for the rest of their lives had they not been disallowed to buy a new HDB flat.
4 Grassroots – Grassroots should be aware by now the hand that feeds them may be chopped off by voters. The ‘impossible’ has already happened in Aljuneid GRC and PAP’s dismal performance is glaring. PAP grassroots members are like banks ie fair weathered friends. Better to swim with the tide than go downhill with PAP. Many are likely to jump ship.
5 Motorcyclists – From $512 in February 2005, COE prices of motorcycles have increased by more than 1000% to $5,800. Since last Jan, the increase is about 300%. PAP is again blinded by money and is simply not bothered even when thousands of motorcyclists rely on their vehicles for a living.
6 Vehicle owners – DPM Tharman has recently announced the impending increase of petrol duty rates by 15 cents (36%) to 20 cents (45%) per litre. For a 1600cc car, Tharman says there will be a road tax rebate of $149, offsetting about two-thirds of the petrol duty hike. Although pump prices may be temporarily low, the increase in duties are permanent. No wonder Singaporeans say whenever the government gives an egg, it will take back a whole chicken.
Assuming a 1600cc car fills up 40 litres of petrol every week, the increase of 15 cents amounts to $6 per week/$24 per month/$288 per year. At a conservative estimate of $300 in increased petrol taxes per year, the 620,000 cars will contribute almost $200 million in annual taxes.
PAP has offered illogical justifications such as “petrol duty rates have remained unchanged since 2003”, as if COE, ERP, etc do not exist.
There are other sources of revenue such as using a small percentage of land sales but PAP says this has to be locked up forever by GIC and Temasek.
Besides these groups of citizens who will likely vote against PAP, there are too many reasons for voters to boot PAP out.
Since the PAP misAIMed by selling public property to its own $2 company, an increasing number of citizens have begun to lose trust in PAP. Few believe in MND’s review which found nothing amiss.
As most PAP MPs went into parliament through the GRC back door, they have now made a joke of themselves. One went around picking up soiled diapers and his admirer in another constituency a used sanitary pad. This was supposed to be “part of a push to stop high-rise littering”. But did it? Isn’t the littering situation still unchanged?
PAP’s liabilities extend beyond these 2 MPs to include one MP who ‘anyhow’ supported a Chinese cheat in his PR application but claimed she was helping an elderly citizen, a lawyer who overcharged by $1 million for his firm but claimed to be unaware of the bill, an eye doctor and Minister of State who pushed the blame to URA and HDB because he had not done his homework, etc.
Minister Khaw has revealed an interesting piece of information – decisions made by our politicised statutory boards are sometimes based on assumptions. Even when thousands of residents were adversely affect, Minister Khaw pretended ‘Fernvalegate’ was a non issue. ‘Accountability’ seems to be alien to the unapologetic Khaw who must have thought his parliamentary entertainment would appease Fernvale residents. It only made him look like a clown.
Flawed policies are flawed policies. Period. The have nothing to do with poor communication eg CPF schemes such as CPF Life, Medishield Life, etc.
Minister Ng Eng Hen claims the PAP has “30 potential new candidates” but one should not expect them to be any different from the current crop of PAP MPs such as Tin Pei Lin, Intan, Lam Pin Min and some clowns.
Since 2011, social media have already exposed serious PAP shortcomings which it has continued to deny through the mainstream media. Would any potential talented candidate join the PAP after having seen its incompetence exposed and all the politicking at citizens’ expense?
Transparency and accountability do matter to citizens ie civil servants can no longer be let off the hook for epic screw ups affecting hundreds of thousands of citizens. They must not be promoted and re circulated within the civil service to cause more havoc simply because they have aligned their interests to PAP’s.
Although the PAP is now swimming against a very strong current, it may still have a couple of tricks up its sleeves, such as returning a partial CPF lump sum at 55 at the last minute. But it may already be too late and it should not expect crocodile tears to work wonders on voters who have been played out too many times.
The luxurious PAP cruise ship will sink after 5 decades of inbreeding on board. Transparency will finally see daylight, our courts will deal with past injustices and the new government will finally allow all the necessary reforms to take place.