ge round 33: issues of contention

Issues of Contention The PAP is of the view that there is no issues or the opposition has run out of issues in this election. The opposition is keeping mum and not saying much, keeping the PAP guessing. Allow me to state what would be the likely issues of contention in this election. PAP's version. 1. To attack WP's manifesto on abolition of the presidency, abolition of grassroot organisations, abolition of HDB racial quota. 2. Poor quality of opposition candidates compare to their high achiever candidates. 3. Their track records of achievements. 4. A brighter future by staying together and moving ahead. 5. More upgradings and more handouts. Opposition version. 1. NKF as a reflection of the failure of the system, accountability, transparency and high pay against corruption. 2. High Minister's pay 3. Upgrading is public money and should not be used as a ransom against the people. 4. High cost of livings. High education fees, high transport fares, high medical fees, etc 5. Foreign talents, retrenchment and jobs for Singaporeans. 6. Casinos 7. One party rule is dangerous for Singapore 8. Need for opposition to check the govt. 9. Attack PAP's manifesto as all sound and no substance. 10. CPF money is the people's money, Medisave etc

timebomb in crooked bridge contract

It was revealed that the contract with Gerbang Perdana also stipulated that the government would pay M$1m for each day that the project was delayed. I am amazed that this clause was in the crooked bridge contract. Now who in his right mind would allow such a clause to be included knowing very well that it is not going to be smooth sailing when it is decided by Malaysia without the consent of Singapore? Would the Malaysian govt dig into this and find out why? They can't be that stupid to sign a contract that technically can bankrupt Malaysia. The contractor can simply take it slow, no rush, and got paid by M$1m a day! A normal contract is for the contractor to pay the user/govt compensation for delay.

singaporeans no need to worry about high medical cost

Khaw Boon Wan said Singaporeans should not be unduly worried about medical cost as long as they have medisave and medishield. So for those who did not have any of these, they better be worried. And for those who have, he said that as long as they are prudent in the choice of wards, they should be ok. Now, is there a change in the govt's position on this? In the past we have heard that only the poor can choose lower class wards. For those who can afford to pay more and want to be prudent, they will not be allowed to. There will be a means test to make sure that those who have money in their medisave will have to pay for more expensive wards. I really hope that there is real change. Otherwise it does not make any difference. Anyone can be hit by a chronic life threatening disease and it could empty all his savings in the medisave at one go. It is thus prudent for people to choose a ward that will not cost them a bomb even if they can afford it. It is unacceptable, knowing that medical cost can be very expensive to force people to go for more expensive wards just because they have some money to pay. We will see whether the manifesto is only an election gimmick or the PAP really has changed its position on this issue. There are only two ways for people to feel a bit more at ease. One is to see a reduction in medical cost. And second for the people to choose and determine whether they should go to C wards. If this is not available, then the manifesto rings quite hollow.

ge round 32: staying together, moving ahead

Have we been staying together and moving ahead...together? If we have, then it is a continuity and people must be very happy, moving ahead together. Have we, did we? If we haven't? What's wrong? Why now then we are saying this? The people have been staying together all these 40 years. There is no doubt on this one. Moving ahead? The nation has been moving ahead despite a few years of consolidation and standing still during the financial crisis. But the other question is whether the people are moving ahead. Some do. Some ran far far ahead. But many were left behind. Why were people been left behind? Was the govt conscious of it, or they have forgotten along the way that they need to bring the people along? Or Rip Van Winkle just woke up and discovers that many of the people are still struggling to get by. And now it is necessary to tell the people that we will move ahead together...during a general election. Would the govt forget again? I would suggest a better motto, less people forget their mission again. The pioneering leaders were very clear in what they want. Build the nation and serve the people. The later leaders did not forget to build the nation. But serving the people? The new motto shall be Serve the People. Not squeeze the People.

ge round 31: a strong mandate to show our foreign friends

Chok Tong said: - "It is important that he gets a strong mandate because, despite all that he has done, if the mandate is weak, what signals are we giving him? "What signals are we giving to our friends outside of Singapore and what signals are we giving to investors? So it is important that we give him a strong mandate." However, Mr Goh declined to be drawn into setting a winning margin for the ruling People's Action Party (PAP). 'If there's a mandate, I would know whether it was strong or weak, but at this stage, I'm not in the business of measuring the support level for him,' he said. The above is lifted from littlespeck.com. What is this thing about a strong mandate? 84/84? Why is 70/84 not a strong mandate, or a popular vote of 60% not good enough? This is a serious problem affecting the thinking of Singaporeans. We are obsessed by abundance. And while some corners of the population are crying money not enough, there are some corners that cannot appreciate what is more than enough or having too much. I can foresee that they will suffer from indigestion one of these days. Our society is suffering from excesses which we are blind to see and pretending to understand that money not enough is a problem to some people. And we need a strong mandate to tell our foreign friends, to pass them a signal? What do our foreign friends want? What the American and Europeans want to see is obvious. I kind of getting use to this word obvious. They want to see multi party representation in parliament. They want to see more opposition members being elected. Now what signal do we want to pass to our foreign friends?